^ 

CO 

CL 

_I"V 

#  «5r 

ca 

/? 

1c 

3 

* 

-o 

J5 

^^ 

HE 

^        t-i 

Q. 

#w 

*<S>      fc 

O 

• 

o 

5 

«     § 

CD 

C 

w         o 

t>fl 

Cv 

«ss        ^ 

<t 

!§ 

i^      g 

"q3 

3 

Sz* 

E 

.<o 

<^                M 

w 

"*>> 

*5       « 

CO 

■&« 

S 

G* 

s 

% 

•73 

CD 

s 

v* 

Q> 

_, 

& 

2 

,g 

& 

£ 

&0 

X 

CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM 

EXHIBITING 

VARIOUS  PROOFS 


THAT   THE 


IMMERSION  OF  BELIEVERS  IN  WATER 


ONLY  BAPTISM, 

INSTITUTED  BY  JESUS  CHRIST  TO  BE  CONTINUED  IN  THE 
CHURCH ; 

AID   THAT  THE 

ASPERSION  OF  INFANTS 


UNSCRIPTURAL  INNOVATION: 

IN  WHICH  ALSO 

Some  strictures  are  made  on  a  late  address  on  a  baptismal  occasion,  by  a 

methoditt  minister the  extolled  production  of  Mr    Peter  Edwards  is 

shewn  to  consist  of  reasonings  and  inferences  grossly  erroneous  ;  and  proper 
attention  is  paid  to  a  pamphlet  lately  published  in  Philadelphia. 


BY  WILLIAM  WHITE, 

PASTOR  OF   THE  SECOND  BAPTIST  CHURCH,  PHILADELPHIA, 


Search  the  scriptures. — Jesus  Christ. 

Buried  with  him  by  baptism  into  death. — Paul. 

It  is  highly  probable  the  Baptist  ideas  will  prevail.— Mr.  Pierie. 


BURLINGTON,  N.  J. 
PRINTED  FOR  THE  AUTHOR. 

BY  S.   C.    USTICK, 

1808. 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2011  with  funding  from 

Princeton  Theological  Seminary  Library 


http://www.archive.org/details/christianbaptismOOwhit 


TOTHEREADE 

- 

SEVERAL  motives  have  induced  me  to  lay  before  ilu 
reader  my  thoughts  in  this  way,  the  principal  of  which  are  the 
following : 

When  Mr.  Peter  Edwards'  book  came  into  this  country,  it 
was  received  by  the  Pcedobaptists  with  the  utmost  enthusiasm, 
and  the  praises  of  the  author  were  sung  throughout  the  United 
States.  In  the  course  of  three  or  four  years  many  large  editions 
were  printed  off.  Congregationalists,  Presbyterians,  and 
Methodists  seemed  to  vie  with  each  other,  which  should  print 
and  circulate  most  of  them.  The  Pcedobaptists  abandoned 
their  old  friends,  such  as  Findley  and  Bostwick,  and  by  their 
general  expression  of  joy,  fully  evinced  that  they  believed 
those  performances  were  lame,  or  at  least  not  unanswerable : 
but  now  they  considered  the  victory  as  secure,  and  Edwards 
was  their  whole  theme.  If  any  one  was  seeking  his  duty  as 
to  baptism,  even  from  the  pulpit  directions  were  given  to  read 
Edwards.  In  all  private  conversations,  Edwards  was  refered 
to.  Their  pulpits  rung  with,  and  retailed  out,  on  the  subject 
of  baptism,  nothing  but  Edwards.  In  every  new  performance, 
Edwards  was  the  text ;  and  without  a  blush  many,  not  content 
with  handing  out  his  ideas,  even  adopted  his  phraseology. 

I  was,  as  might  be  expected,  anxious  to  see  this  far-famed 
production ;  and,  after  having  obtained  it,  being  convinced 
that  it  might  be  very  easily  answered,  I  set  about  it,  and 
afterward  desisted  from  it,  only  on  account  of  hearing  that 
one  of  my  brethren  was  engaged  in  a  similar  work. 

Having  laid  it  aside  then,  it  would  probably  never  have 
appeared,  had  not  an  attack  been  made  on  the  Baptists  bv  the 
Rev.  Joseph  Totten,  a  Methodist  preacher,  in  the  presence 
of  thousands,  in  which  he  propagated  many  untruths  ;  and 


IV 

had  not  that  attack  been  followed  up  by  one  from  a  Rev. 
gentleman,  believed  for  some  reasons  to  be  a  resident  in  this 
city,  who  did  not  chuse  to  prefix  his  name  to  his  performance, 
whether  through  shame  or  not,  is  not  for  me  to  say  ;  but  this 
last  work  was  ushered  into  the  world  by  hand-bills  stuck  up 
at  the  public  corners,  and  in  the  taverns,  for  miles  round  the 
city,  headed  with  the  words  "  INFANT  BAPTISM,"  in 
large  capitals.  I  had  pledged  myself  to  the  public  to  notice 
the  address  of  the  first  gentleman :  but  have  indeed  been  sorry 
for  my  promise,  as  on  a  review,  I  have  really  thought  his 
remarks  unworthy  of  notice. 

In  these  strictures,  I  am  sensible  there  are  many  inaccu- 
racies as  to  style  and  composition,  which  indeed  were  minor 
considerations  ;  and  criticism  on  either  will  give  me  no  pain. 
For  the  sentiment,  I  offer  no  apology,  but  invite  investigation, 
and  shall  feel  it  a  pleasure  to  reply. 

Two  late  Sermons,  printed  in  New-Jersey,  are  not  noticed 
in  this  work*,  because  it  was,  with  the  exception  of  the 
preface,  finished  before  I  saw  them. 

This  volume  has  been  ready  for  the  press  more  than  nine 
months  past ;  but  some  unforeseen  difficulties  have  occurred, 
to  prevent  its  appearing  until  now. 

WILLIAM  WHITE. 

Philadelphia,  May  1808. 

*  The  Sermons  I  allude  to  have  been  written,  the  one  by  Dr.  Smith  of 
Prrnceton,  the  other  by  Rev.  Mr.  Findley  of  Baskenridge :  but  neither  of 
them  contains  a  single  idea,  which  has  not  been  frequently  and  fully  refuted. 


CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM,  .&c. 

IN  THREE  PARTS, 


PART  I. 

Addressed  to  the  Rev.  Joseph  Totten 


^^L 


Sir 


I 


HAVE  taken  the  liberty  to  make  a  few  strictures 
on  your  late  address  at  the  water.  I  need  not  apologize  for 
this  freedom,  because  you  seemed  then  to  court  investigation ; 
and,  not  content  with  signifying  a  willingness  to  defend  your 
system,  (if  it  deserves  that  name),  you  even  defied  any  person 
on  the  margin  of  the  river  then  present,  to  prove  your  assertions 
-unfounded.  Your  defiance,  twice  repeated,  did  but  remind  me 
of  the  Philistine  who  flourished  in  the  presence  of  the  armies  of 
Israel,  and  who  like  you,  ridiculed  their  God :  but  remember, 
sir,  that  with  all  your  boasted  armour,  it  will  require  nothing 
but  an  insignificant  pebble  to  bring  you  to  the  ground.  Under 
such  circumstances  to  remain  silent,  would  but  afford  you  a 
theme  of  exultation  among  your  brethren,  while  riding  the 
circuit,  and  give  you  an  opportunity  uncontradicted,  to  assert  a 
victory  over  the  Baptists  you  never  obtained :  but  that  the 
weakness  of  your  performance  may  be  seen,  and  that  you  in 
future  may  be  more  guarded,  I  now  lay  before  the  public  what 
you  then  advanced,  which  was  minuted  immediately  after  the 
transaction. 

I  attended  at  the  Delaware  that  day  from  the  best  motives, 
even  to  countenance  an  ordinance  of  Christ  administered  in  the 
primitive  way.  This  was  done  by  our  society  in  general,  to  let  it 
be  seen  that  we  did  wish  to  go  with  our  Methodist  brethren  as 
far  as  we  could,  and  that  our  opposition  to  them  was  not  on 
account  of  the  name  they  bore,  but  because  of  their  practice  ; 
and  that  we  wanted  nothing  more  to  reconcile  us  to  them,  than 
an  abandonment  of  what  we  verily  believed  to  be  contrary  to  the 
word  of  God.  Had  we  remained  at  home  on  that  occasion,  you 
might  then  have  charged  us  with  a  partiality  to  the  name  of 
Baptist,  and  insisted  that  we  did  not  regard  the  ordinance, 
because  we  refused  to  give  it  countenance  :  yet,  when  we  did 
attend,  our  motives  for  so  doing  were  impeached,  and  we  were 
said  to  be  fond  of  litigation.  Be  it  known  to  you,  sir,  that  when 
we  sciw  a  number  of  Methodists  (whom  we  know  to  be  the  mos| 

B 


bitter  and  implacable  enemies  of  the  doctrines  which  the  Baptist* 
hold  to  be  eternal  truth)  coming  to  the  water  to  be  baptized  in 
reality  ;  we  considered  it  as  a  complete  triumph  of  truth  over 
antiquated  error,  and  a  pledge  of  its  universal  prevalence.  But 
never  did  1  see  a  man  placed  in  a  more  auk  ward  situation  than 
yourself  j  for  your  whole  address  went  to  prove  that  immersion 
is  not  baptism,  or  in  other  words,  that  dipping  is  not  dipping  : 
and  yet,  after  the  expence  of  a  full  hour's  labour  and  sweat,  and 
after  a  number  of  known  falsehoods  urged  against  the  Baptists, 
as  if  it  were  designed  to  put  you  to  the  blush,  and  tell  you  they 
did  not  believe  one  word  you  had  said  ;  I  say,  immediately  after 
you  had  ended  your  libel  on  baptism,  twelve  persons  went  down 
into  the  water,  in  your  presence,  and  were  completely  immersed. 
Yea,  and  to  shew  how  much  they  despised  pcedobaptism,  they 
would  not  suffer  you,  sir,  to  perform  the  ordinance,  being  an 
unbaptized  man ;  and,  therefore,  rightly  deeming  you  unquali- 
fied to  administer  it,  waited  several  months  for  one  of  your  own 
order,  who  had  been  himself  regularly  baptized.  Do  not  mis- 
take, reader,  these  were  not  Baptists,  who  had  the  effrontery 
to  go  down  into  the  water  after  such  a  learned  address  ;  but 
Methodists,  and  some  of  them  of  no  mean  repute  either.  Now 
the  conduct  above  described  might  stand  thus  : 

1  Be  it  known  to  the  citizens  of  Philadelphia,  and  others  who 
maybe  interested,  that  we  whose  names  are  hereunto  subscribed 
(being  twelve  in  number)  were  a  legal  jury  of  our  country, 
impannelled  to  try  a  cause  depending  between  infant  sprinkling 
and  believers'  immersion  in  water,  which  of  them  is  baptism 
according  to  scripture :  and,  after  having  heard  learned  counsel 
on  one  side  only,  and  that  in  favour  of  sprinkling,  and  also  from 
the  same  counsel  much  defamation  against  the  immersion  of 
believers  ;  the  case  appeared  to  us  so  plain,  that  without  hearing 
counsel  on  the  other  side,  we  did  unanimously  agree  to  a  verdict, 
which  we  delivered  by  going  down  into  the  water  and  being 
immersed  in  the  same.    Signed,  Stc' 

This,  sir,  is  a  specimen  of  your  success  ;  and  if  all  vour 
future  endeavours  are  crowned  with  the  like,  we  shall  see  the 
advocates  for  infant  sprinkling  greatly  diminished,  and  but  a  few 
obstinate  characters  adhere  to  a  system  already  tottering.-Every 
such  discourse  will  do  more  for  the  cause  of  the  Baptists  than 
you  can  well  calculate. 

I  have  nothing  to  say  against  the  deportment  of  either  of  the 
clergy  who  were  present  but  yourself ;  for  they  conducted  them- 
selves with  much  solemnity.  Neither  do  we  find  fault  with  the 
administration  of  the  e>rdinance  ;  it  was  done  decently  enough  : 
nor  yet  with  the  candidates  ;  for  they  on  the  whole  merited 
applause; — the  indiscretioix;  yf  two  of  them,  ought  not  to  be 


attributed  to  the  rest.  But,  sir,  how  can  you  defend  your 
conduct?  for  some  of  it  was  indecent,  and  some  of  it  irreverent, 
to  say  the  least  of  it.  You  introduced  the  service  by  asserting, 
the  ordinances  of  the  gospel  were  solemn,  and  then  recognized 
as  one  of  them  that  which  was  about  being-  celebrated  ;  and  yet, 
after  such  declarations,  and  after  exhorting  the  people  to  treat 
it  with  respect,  you  did  in  plain  words  deny  that  immersion  is 
baptism.  It  will  not  avail  you  to  say,  that  you  left  men  to  enjoy 
liberty  of  conscience,  and  that  what  they  thought  to  be  right, 
was  really  so  ;  for  when  you  pretended  to  take  the  scriptures  for 
vour  guide  in  search  of  baptism,  you  then  declared  "  there  were 
two  modes,  and  only  two  that  you  could  find  in  the  Bible,  and 
that  they  were  sprinkling  and  pouring — the  first  from  Ezekitl 
xxxvi.  %S,  the  other  from  Zech.  xi.  10."  Now,  sir,  how  could 
you  dare  to  insult  the  understandings  of  your  audience  thus  ? 
Did  you  think  they  would  let  such  glaring  contradictions  pass,- 
and  that  they  were  prepared  to  swallow  every  thing  you  said  ? 
Surely,  a  man  that  had  any  common  respect  for  his  own  repu- 
tation, or  for  public  opinion,  would  not  thus  have  acted.  But, 
sir,  your  audiences  are  notjn  the  habit  of  disputing  ministerial 
dogmas,  and  this  accounts  for  your  temerity. 

The  indelicacy  of  the  remark  you  made  will  not  speedily  be 
forgotten,  when  you  said,  vt  if  immersion  were  necessary,  you 
would  strip  yourself  naked  and  go  into  the  water  :"  and  lest  it 
might  not  be  heard,  you  repeated  it  with  extended  voice.  Were 
you  afraid  the  people  would  mistake  your  character,  and  con- 
clude you  to  be  a  decent  and  modest  man,  that  you  forced  them 
to  hear  such  vulgarity?  Or  did  you  wish  to  stir  up  lewd  and 
unhallowed  passions,  to  take  off  the  solemn  effect  of  the  scene, 
and  furnish  young  rakes  and  bloods  with  something  to  laugh  at 
over  their  cups  ?  Or  did  you  wish,  by  such  mean  and  pitiful 
observations,  to  bring  the  ordinance  into  contempt,  and  thus 
deter  the  modest  female  from  the  duty,  lest  she  should  incur 
such  illiberal  remarks  ?  Did  you  give  it  as  your  advice  to  the 
candidates  to  act  thus  ?  Or  was  it  to  counsel  the  administrator 
not  to  perform  the  ordinance  unless  they  complied  ?  Whatever 
were  your  motives,  or  whether  you  had  any  at  all,  it  is  difficult 
for  me  to  know  :  but,  as  I  am  disposed  to  think  the  best  of  it,  I 
must  attribute  it  to  a  want  of  that  intercourse  with  the  modest 
part  of  society,  which  never  fails  to  lay  a  restraint  on  unbecoming 
freedom. 

You  also  said  much  of  yourself,  and  in  the  opinion  of  manvfar 
too  much.  You  told  us  of  your  large  acquaintance  with  scripture, 
and  that  you  would  not  yield  to  any  in  that  particular.  WThy,  sir, 
did  you  tell  us  of  it  ?  Did  we  not  witness  your  great  strength  ot 
memory?  Were  you  afraid  we  should  forget  how  you  bel$!*}y*ed 


Us  with  texts  of  scripture,  especially  when  you  had  to  resort  to 
Ezekiel's  prophecies  to  prove  what  were  c  the  modes  of  baptism^ 
as  you  termed  them  ?  Yea,  and  when  you  most  unanswerably 
proved,  that  a  person  of  thirty  years  old  is  not  an  infant,  nor 
3^et  an  infant  thirty  years  old !  But,  above  all,  after  boasting 
so  much  about  what  you  could  do  in  proving  infant  baptism  (or 
rather  sprinkling)  from  scripture,  you  at  last  referred  us  to  Mark 
x.  16.  '  Jesus  took  young  children  in  his  arms  and  blessed  them.' 
But  where  is  it  said  he  baptized  them  ?  Did  you  mean,  when 
asserting  your  knowledge  of  scripture,  to  compliment  the  baptists 
by  letting  the  world  know,  that  with  all  your  great  knowledge  of 
holy  writ,  you  could  find  but  one  text  that  made  against  them  ? 
— O  ye  Pcedobaptists,  here  is  a  gentleman  who  declares  his 
knowledge  of  the  scripture  equal,  at  least,  to  that  of  any  man, 
(how  much  superior,  he  has  not  yet  declared  ;  but  that  may 
possibly  be  done  at  the  next  Methodist  baptism)  ;  and,  after  all 
his  great  research,  has  not  produced  one  solitary  text,  nor  yet  a 
half  of  one,  to  prove  infant  baptism  to  have  been  in  practice  ; 
and  will  you  now  undertake  to  do  what  this  gentleman  has  failed 
in  ?  If  you  will  presume  to  have  him  for  an  antagonist  you  must, 
as  he  will  not  yield  in  point  of  scripture  knowledge  to  "  any 
man." 

But  I  have  run  too  fast :  you  did  not  say  indeed,  that  you 
could  bring  scripture  which  would  apply  to  the  case,  but  simply 
that  you  could  bring  scripture,  I  beg  your  pardon,  sir,  for 
misapprehending  you  ;  for  there  is  a  great  difference  between 
bringing  scripture  to  prove  a  point,  and  merely  citeing  it  to 
exhibit  strength  of  memory.  I  believe  that  you  are  emulous  of 
the  latter  more  than  the  former.  You  did^  indeed,  bring  a  great 
deal  of  scripture  which  just  proved  nothing  at  all,  unless  proving 
that  you  did  not  understand  the  controversy  was  proving  some- 
thing ;  and  the  texts  you  quoted  to  defend  infant  baptism,  were 
of  the  same  kind  that  the  pope  of  Rome  has  taken  to  make  it 
appear  that  he  stands  in  Peter*s  shoes,  yea,  that  he  is  Peter 
himself,  or  at  least  his  representative  : — we  shall  however  give 
some  specimens  of  your  scripture  knowledge  presently. 

You  next  tell  us  you  are  a  Methodist — have  been  one  tivcnty 
years,  and  glory  in  your  co?inecticn  with  that  society.  How  in 
the  name  of  wonder  does  all  this  prove  infant  baptism  ?  Are  we 
then  to  receive  it  because  the  Methodist  society  in  general,  and 
you  in  particular,  are  in  favour  of  it  ? — I  hope  we  shall  not  be 
brought  before  the  conference  for  being  dissentients. — But  you 
have  been  a  "  Methodist  minister  twenty  years," — twenty  years 

a  minister  ! — and  a  Methodist  minister  too  ! Why  you  must 

have*  grown  grey  hi  the  service  by  this  time.     O,  now  I  under- 
stand you — your  silver  leeks  and  great  experience  must  plead 


the  cause  of  infant  sprinkling,  (eloquent  orators  indeed !)  The 
impertinences  of  youthful  enquiry  must  give  way  to  sage  counsel 
and  wisdom. — As  to  the  glory  attached  to  your  connection,  we 
feel  no  disposition  to  deprive  you  of  it ;  yet,  at  the  same  time,  we 
hesitate  not  to  say,  that  our  envy  is  not  excited  by  your  privilege, 
and  we  think  it  adds  nothing  to  the  weight  of  your  argument. 

You  likewise  let  us  know  how  "  sure  you  were  of  getting  to 
heaven,  if  you  continued  faithful  as  you  then  were."  How,  sir, 
does  this  apply  to  the  controversy  ?  Because  you  will  go  to 
heaven  when  you  die,  must  believers  baptism  needs  be  wrong 
on  that  account?  Cannot  you  go  to  heaven,  and  believers  baptism 
be  scriptural  after  all?  Or  did  you  mean  to  insinuate,  the  poor 
Baptists  must  then  of  course  go  to  hell,  and  that  as  a  reward  for 
their  opposing  the  baptizing  of  little  infant  believers,  as  you 
would  have  them  to  be  ?  Or  it  may  be,  that  as  heaven  is  to  be 
the  reward  of  your  faithfulness  (not  the  gift  of  grace),  that  you 
concluded,  a  less  price  than  heavenly  glory  would  not  repay 
the  labour  of  love,  and  great  service  done  to  the  cause  of  religion 

by  your  baptismal  address. Jonah  was  sent  to  denounce 

the  Ninevites,  and  foretel  their  utter  destruction  by  some  tem- 
poral judgment,  unless  averted  by  a  national  humiliation  :  but 
the  same  man,  seeing  their  overthrow  not  likely  to  be  accom- 
plished, was  mightily  concerned  lest  his  character  as  a  prophet 
should  suffer  by  the  extension  of  divine  mercy.  It  would  seem 
that  you  were  acting  the  same  thing  over  again,  making  your 
religious  character  as  a  man,  stand  or  fall  with  your  assertions 
as  a  preacher  ;  and,  as  your  going  to  heaven  could  not  be  ques- 
tioned by  us  Baptists,  unless  we  should  take  leave  of  our  senses, 
that,  of  course,  all  you  said  at  the  water  must  be  true,  yea,  truer 
than  the  gospel  itself,  for  to  be  sure  you  have  leamt  more  than 
the  ignorant  apostles*. — Before  I  take  leave  of  this  favourite 
remark  of  yours,  I  would  ask  whether  such  avowals  of  assurance 
were  delivered  in  meekness  and  fear  ?  And  whether  they  do 
not  look  too  much  like  that  odious  thing  spiritual  pride,  and 
religious  boasting,  than  which  nothing  degrades  a  christian 
more  ?  I  do  not  mention  these  things  as  a  denial  of  your  Christi- 
anity7 ;  but  this  I  must  say,  that  you  looked  very  little  like  your 
divine  Master,  while  trying  to  bring  his  ordinance  into  contempt ; 
and,  by  acting  the  buffoon  in  the  presence  of  thousands,  to  obtain 
the  rich  teward  of  a  laugh.  And  sure  I  am,  your  then  conduct 
formed  no  evidence  of  your  assurance  being  genuine. 

It  would  seem,  that  you  came  with  a  view  of  silencing  us 
forever  on  the  subject  of  baptism  ;  and  to  leave  this  very  grateful 
testimony  of  respect  behind  you  to  your  friends,  who  no  doubt 

*  These  were  his  expressions  at  the  v/ater- 


10 

will  be  hard  pressed  to  find  a  successor  so  learned  (especially  in 
Greek  prepositions),  so  meek,  so  modest,  diffident,  free  from 
slander  and  low  vulgarity  as  yourself.  But  as  for  me,  my 
wounds  are  incurable  ;  for  you  laid  about  you  so  lustily,  that, 
indeed,  medical  aid  must  immediately  be  called  in,  or  what  the 
consequences  may  be  is  uncertain.  How  you  must  have  enjoyed 
yourself  to  see  us  Baptists  so  chopfallen,  to  see  how  you  con- 
verted us  to  your  way  of  thinking,  and  how  we  afterward  sought 
for  admission  into  your  society !  One  of  your  people  reported 
that  we  were  dreadfully  mangled,  and  others  much  doubted 
if  there  was  a  whole  bone  left ;  and  as  for  the  poor  parson,  (as 
they  termed  me),  they  surely  concluded  he  must  keep  his 
chamber  for  weeks  at  least,  and  would  never  dare  appear  again 
on  the  baptizing  ground.  You  had  declared  your  wish  to  have 
a  "  whet1'  at  me  :  but  to  think  all  this  must  be  done  in  public, 
where  I  could  not  avoid  the  shame  consequent  on  a  defeat ;  and 
to  think  you  must  defy  every  one  on  the  ground  as  well  as  my- 
self, and  lest  it  should  not  be  heard,  to  repeat  the  same  !  How, 
sir,  is  it  possible  that  means  can  be  devised  to  take  off  all  this 
odium  !  ! ! — Well,  one  thing  consoles  me,  that  you  challenged 
at  least  three  thousand  people,  and  you  know  I  am  but  one 
among  so  many  :  but  then  the  dear  people  looked  at  me  so, 
and  the  Methodist  brethren  gave  me  such  vers'  loving  glances, 
acd  some  smiled  so  charmingly ;  that  my  vanity  became  nattered 
witli  the  idea,  that  by  the  "  every  one  present,"  myself  only 
was  intended.  Well,'  thought  I,  what  a  HUGE  BEING  the 
Baptist  parson  must  be,  that  he  has  hidden  from  view  all  the 
numerous  assembly  ;  or  how  strangely  must  the  visionary 
organs  of  the  preacher  have  deceived  him,  when  to  his  distem- 
pered fancy,  the  little  parson  seemed  to  multiply  into  thousands, 

yea  to  cover  the  whole  shore  ! Your  empty  vapouring  where 

you  well  knew  your  challenge  could  not  be  accepted,  especially 
as  the  tide  was  ebbing  rapidly,  gave  me  but  little  concern  ;  for 
you  would  not  fail  to  have  improved  a  reply  to  your  weak 
assertions,  (for  arguments  they  were  not),  into  a  design  to 
interrupt  the  service — vea,  such  was  your  magnanimity,  that 
when  I  only  mentioned  to  the  people  my  intention  to  notice  you 
at  our  next  baptism,  your  cry  was,  u  Don't  interrupt  me,  I  am 
not  yet  done."  But,  sir,  words  may  be  forgotten,  or  denied, 
which  will  probably  be  the  course  you  will  adopt  on  this  occasion, 
though  they  may  be  attested  by  hundreds  : — but  that  the  public 
may  see  what  a  champion  you  are  for  infant  sprinkling,  I  now 
in  turn  challenge  you  to  a  reply,  and  let  you  know  that  you  will 
be  abundantly  noticed.  There  is  nothing  the  Baptists  covet 
more  than  public  discussion,  and  our  Preclobaptist  brethren  have 
hitherto  found  their  account  in  observing  a  profound  silence. 


11 

Little  will  they  thank  you  for  exposing  their  weak  cause,  and 
forcing  them  into  a  contest  they  have  studiously  avoided.  A 
iiostwick,  a  Findley,  an  Edwards,  have  all  in  turn  failed  :  but 
you,  sir,  mean  to  rival  them  all,  and  as  if  heaven  had  designed 
lOl  \  OU         ,,  .pke  laurel  wreath  to  grace  the  vicior's  brow," 

and  that  a  Buonaparte  should  rise  in  the  religious  as  in  the  poli- 
tical world  ;  men  will  have  nothing  now  to  do,  but  stand  with 
amazement  and  behold  your  skill.  Two  or  three  old  nostrums, 
such  as — u  Baptism  is  not  essential — these  are  little  things — no 
questions  will  be  asked  by  and  by,  whether  you  are  baptized  or 
not— what  will  become  of  infants — of  Quakers — of  heathens — 
a  little  water,  a  drop  is  as  good  as  an  ocean  :" — these  would 
have  done  more  for  you,  than  all  you  can  bring  from  the  divine 
word.  Now,  sir,  mark  what  I  say,  this  very  injudicious  attack 
on  the  Baptists,,  will  end  ultimately  in  your  defeat,  and  in  the 
advancement  of  the  rite  of  our  adored  Redeemer. 

Among  your  strange  reasons  for  the  truth  of  infant  baptism, 
the  following  was  not  the  least,  to  wit :  il  That  God  had  greatly 
owned  the  Methodist  society — that  six  hundred  had  been  added 
to  your  churches  in  the  city  last  year — that  the  minutes  of  the 
conference  would  exhibit  greater  wonders  still ;  and  that  God 
has  owned  iniant  baptism  by  giving  you  a  happy  time,  when 
vou  were  sprinkling  some  candidates.  Yea,  and  that  you  were 
-sure  if  it  was  not  right,  God  would  not  have  done  this,  but 
would  have  sent  you  into  damnation,"  (pardon  me,  for  they  are 
your  own  words).  Were  the  Methodist  society  in  reality  as 
successful  as  they  would  have  us  believe,  would  that  be  a  con- 
vincing proof  that  their  doctrines  were  right?  Certainly  not. 
With  the  same  propriety,  and  indeed  with  more,  might  the 
Romish  church  urge  this  as  evidence  in  their  favour ;  for  it 
cannot  be  denied  that  popery  lias  spread  much  wider,  and 
lasted  much  longer,  than  ever  methodism  has  done.  Ho*.?- 
readily  might  the  Jews  have  urged  the  same  against  the  docti  h.t* 
of  Christ,  and  on  the  same  principles  the  heathen  nations  might 
have  insisted  the  christian  religion  was  not  true,  inasmuch  as 
his  followers  were  few  and  mean.  Though  we  are  willing  to 
grant  that  the  Methodists  have  been  successful,  and  useful  in  a 
certain  degree  ;  yet  we  are  by  no  means  disposed  to  grant  it  to 
the  extent  they  desire.  I  know  indeed  that  your  society  wish  to 
appear  respectable,  and  to  leave  the  impression  on  die  public 
mind  diat  your  number?  are  very  axeat.  With  this  view  it  may 
be,  that  your  ministers  are  obliged  to  attend  conference  at  one 
place,  that  the  appearance  of  such  a  body  together  mi^ht  el 
the  idea,  and  with  it  2  plea  for  false  principles:  Were 
-societies  #0  anxious  on  that  hea  L  it  w<  uld  ■     - 


12 

•your  numbers,  as  well  as  talents,  were  comparatively  insignifi- 
cant.— You  tell  us,  it  is  true,  how  many  you  had  added  to  your 
society  in  the  last  year  within  the  city  ;  but  then,  why  did  you 
not  favour  us  with  an  account  of  the  number  that  still  remain 
with  vou  ?  We  have  become  so  familiar  with  Methodist  revivals 
that  they  cease  to  create  surprise ;  not  so  much  because  they  are 
frequent  and  real,  as  from  a  fear  that  often  they  are  the  result 
of  a  mere  elevation  of  the  passions,  which  in  a  little  while  vanish 
or  leave  but  few  traces  behind. 

Nothing  is  more  common  than  to  hear  the  cry,  c  the  mighty 
power  of  God  !  !  the  mighty  power  of  God  !  !'  But  when  all 
comes  to  all,  it  Avould  seem  the  Lord  has  had  but  very  little 
hand  in  it,  and  the  better  name  for  it  would  have  been,  the 
mighty  power  of  the  lungs.  It  affords  pleasantry  enough  to  hear 
the  preacher  threatening  the  devil  with  a  black  eye,  a  broken 
Itg,  or  at  least  a  fractured  scull ;  and  not  content  therewith,  he 
must  be  made  to  scamper  out  of  the  sinner's  throat,  yea,  and 
sometimes  he  has  to  run  for  it  so,  that  he  does  not  dare  to 
stop  within  a  day's  journey  of  them.  It  is  common  enough 
to  see  societies  of  them  collected  together,  and  like  Jonah's 
gourd,  come  up  in  a  night  and  perish  in  a  night — an  instance  of 
which  take. — A  certain  hired  girl  in  this  city  went  home  one 
evening,  and  addressed  her  mistress  thus  :  uOh!  said  she,  we 
have  had  a  great  display  of  divine  power  among  us  this  evening." 
<k  Well,  and  how  so  r"  said  the  mistress.  "  This  night,"  said 
she,  M  we  have  had  added  to  our  society  thirty  persons."  M  But 
how  many  have  you  turned  out  this  night  ?  .  '*  We  have  cast 
out  thirty-two  backsliders*. "  This  you  see,  sir,  will  set  your 
revival  in  its  true  light. — Will  any  sober  man  deem  6uch  to  be 
be  revivals  of  religion,  when  the  doors  of  a  meeting-house  are 
locked,  and  those  who  are  there  prevented  from  retiring  ;  and 
then  ministers  and  members  reiterate  the  most  horrid  cries  and 
shrieks,  until  persons  not  accustomed  to  such  scenes  become 
terrified,  and  while  thus  alarmed,  the  preacher  solicits  their 
names  to  be  placed  on  his  class  paper,  and  then  these  are  his 

converts  ? Methodists  talk  much  of  falling  from  grace  :  but 

it  is  such  grace  as  they  have  received  from  their  ministers, 
not  from  God — grace  that  never  changed  the  Heart,  but  only 
alarmed  their  fears. 

When  mention  was  made  by  you  that  the  Lord  had  sanctioned 
infant  sprinkling  by  his  presence,  I  perfectlv  understood  you.  It 
bad  become  notorious,  that  the  immersion  of  believers  had  been 
made  the  happy  instrument  of  awakening  many  sinners.  Now, 
that  this  might  not  detract  from  the  credit  of  your  favourite 

*  Should  Mr.  T.  dispute  the  credibility  of  this  or  any  succeeding  anecdote, 
-.be  writer  cf  this  work  is  pieparwd  to  adduce  testimony  of  its  correctness* 


practice,  it  was  your  wish  to  make  it  appear  that  God  had 
equallv  approved  its  administration.  When  you  were  about 
producing  your  strong  proof,  my  curiosity  was  not  a  little  raised, 
and  I  expected  nothing  so  much  as  to  hear  of  numbers  that  were 
converted  at  the  sight;  but,  after  having  waited  with  the  utmost 
impatience,  the  mountain  in  labour  brought  forth  a  mouse.  You 
tell  us  you  had  a  happy  time.  A  happy  time  !  that  is,  perhaps 
vou  were  ail  in  an  uproar — fell  to  shouting — disturbed  the 
neighbourhood  with  your  noise,  (for  these  are  what  vour  people 
deem  their  happy  meetings)  ;  and  all  this  to  be  sure  must  be 
ibuted  to  God,  and  these  irregularities  pass  for  the  workings 
of  his  Spirit.  But  you  think  God  would  have  u  damned  you 
in  the  act,"  if  infant  baptism  were  not  from  heaven  :  but 
remember,  sir,  that  it  is  yet  time  enough  for  him  to  reprove 
vour  conduct,  and  though  damnation  may  not  be  the  penalty, 
vet  vou  are  not  escaped  out  of  his  hand. 

While  atheists  have  mocked  at  the  being  of  a  God — while 
gentiles  have  sacrificed  to  devils — while  deists  have  denied 
divine  revelation  utterly,  and  while  Jews  were  hanging  the 
blessed  Jesus  on  a  tree  ;  God  was  silent,  and  seemed  not  to 
notice  these  things  :  but  will  you  make  the  forbearance  of  God 
an  argument  for  additional  insult  ?  I  suppose  your  excessive 
impiety  and  ridicule  at  the  water,  was  the  fruit  of  such  a 
sentiment.  The  same  argument  would  justify  all  the  error  of 
opinion,  and  all  the  immorality  of  practice,  that  ever  was  in 
existence  among  those  who  call  themselves  christians. 

You  console  yourself  with  the  sentiment,  that  no  enquiries 
will  be  made  by  and  by  whether  you  have  or  have  not  been 
baptized,  or  whether  baptism  has  been  rightly  or  improperlv 
performed,  and  you  are  pleased  to  call  these  by  the  name  of 
little  things.  However,  for  a  warning  to  you,  and  to  make  it 
evident  God  will  require  it  at  your  hands,  take  the  following 
quotations. — "  From  the  days  of  your  fathers  ye  have  gone 
away  from  mine  ordinances,  and  have  not  kept  them,'1  Mab.ehi 
iii.  7.  u  Why  do  ye  transgress  the  commandment  of  God  by 
your  tradition  :"  Matth.  xv.  3.  "  In  vain  they  do  worship  me, 
teaching  for  doctrines  the  commandments  of  men."  Matth.  v.  9. 
"  Full  well  ve  reject  the  commandment  of  God,  that  ye  ma\ 
keep  your  own  tradition,"  Mark  vii.  9.  "  Making  the  word  or" 
God  of  none  effect  through  your  tradition ,"  Mark  vii.  13. 
"  Whosoever ^whether  private  or  public  character)  shall  break 
one  of  these  least  commandments,  (only  one,  and  that  not  a  little 
one,  but  the  least)  and  shall  teach  men  so,  he  shall  be  called  the 
least  m  the  kingdom  of  heaven,"  Matth.  v.  19.  What  now 
nes  of  your  assertion,  that  God  regards  not  th 


Out  of  humour  with  the  Baptists  on  account  of  tlieir  requiring 
religious  experience  from  the  candidates  for  baptism,  as  a  proof 
of  your  liberality,  you  a  would  not  go  through  such  tedious 
forms  as  hearing  of  experiences  and  dreams,  but  would  take 
their  word,  for  it,  and  if  they  seemed  to  be  aifected  by  the  truth 
preached,  take  them  down  the  bank  immediately  by  hundreds, 

and  baptize  them  right  awa}'." Now,  reader,  here   is  a 

precious  confession  indeed!  this  is  a  specimen  of  additions 
made  to  the  Methodist  episcopal  church.  The  man  seems  not 
to  care  whether  his  converts  are  the  children  of  God,  or  the 
children  of  the  devil ;  he  would  tumble  them  into  ih  ;  Methodist 
church  by  hundreds— verily  he  is  not  very  nice  about  his  spiritual 
company!  I  deem  this  remark  of  his  the  mere  important, 
because  it  is  well  known  the  Methodists  have  pretended  to 
more  spirituality  than  their  neighbours,  and  are  often  branding 
other  societies  with  the  odious  epithets  of  hypocritts  and  formal 
professors  ;  and  they  have  not  failed  to  say  these  thngs  cf  the 
Baptists :  but  now  it  seems  the  Baptists  are  too  strict,  much  more 
so  than  the  gentleman  would  have  been  in  a  similar  case !  Is  not 
this  a  compliment  to  the  Baptists  ?  and  does  it  not  go  to  say, 
(and  which  is  certainly  true)  that  we  are  careful  of  receiving 
unworthy  persons  into  our  connection  ;  while  Methodists,  or 
at  least  the  gentleman  himself,  would  feel  no  scruple  on  that 
head  r  I  confess,  that  I  never  before  had  thought  that  the 
Methodist  society  had  so  greatly  degenerated,  until  I  received 
It  from  the  gentleman's  own  lips  ;  but  had  conceived  they  wished 
the  children  of  God,  and  only  such,  to  unite  with  them  :  but 
now,  I  find,  (if  the  gentleman  has  stated  their  views  right),  they 
are  opening  their  doors  wide  (for  the  world  to  come  in.  Eut 
then,  what  he  advanced  was  not  thought  to  be  quite  correct  by 
his  colleague  ;  for,  immediately  after  the  elegant  address  of  the 
speaker  was  finished,  behold  !  the  Rev.  Mr.  Smith  (and  to  his 
konour  I  mention  it.)  interrogated  the  subjects  in  a  variety  of 
instances,  as  to  their  knowledge  of,  and  faith  in,  Christ,  and 

resolutions  to  live  a  religious  life. Did  you  not  feel  very  much 

confused,  sir,  when  this  was  done  ?  or,  are  you  so  insensible  to 
nhame,  that  you  cannot  blush  ? 

You  will,  Mr.  Totten,  doubtless  pardon  m£,  if  I  inform  the 
reader  why  you  were  incensed  against  the  relating  of  dreams  : 
but,  at  any  rate,  whether  or  not,  he  shall  have  the  reason  in 

full. It  is  not,  gentle  reader,  that  the  Baptists  are  so  fond  of 

d«  earns,  that  I  relate  this  ;  for,  although  we  think  it  proper  to 
recite  such  as  have  been  blessed  by  God  to  the  awakening  of  the 
party  ;  yet  it  is  w  n,  that  we  diligently  look  into  the 

feelings  and  views  of  the  candidate,  to  see  if  the  divine  Spirit  be 
Sit  work,  or  whether  the  person  has  had  only  legal  fears.     But 


15 

then  the  gentleman  was  all  alive  on  account  of  a  very  particular 
dream,  that  was  related  by  a  young  man,  one  of  our  candidates 
for  baptism,  whom  he  had  tried  to  make  a  convert  of,  but  had 
entirely  failed,  and  who,  to  his  great  mortification,  considering 
the  dream  to  be  a  warning  from  God,  (of  the  correctness  of 
which  opinion  the  reader  must  judge  for  himself),  joined  the 
Baptist  church. — Now,  reader,  for  your  satisfaction,  and  that 
you  may  sympathize  with  the  gentleman,  you  shall  have  the 
dream,  which  was  as  follows  :  u  I  was,"  said  the  young  man, 
"  an  attendant  on  the  Methodist  worship,  and  was  inclined  to 
them  much ;  but  one  night,  in  a  dream,  I  thought  that  I  was 
among  thousands  of  people,  who  were  in  the  act  of  gathering 
in  a  harvest — that  while  thus  employed,  a  person  in  shining 
garments  made  his  appearance,  and  called  to  me  with  a  loud 
voice,  saying,  '  Come  out  from  among  that  people,  for  they  are 
Methodists.'  Ke  then  said, '  Do  you  know  what  they  are  about  ?* 
To  which  I  replied,  4  Yes,  they  are  gathering  in  an  harvest.' 
He  then  said,  '  Do  you  know  what  kind  of  wheat  it  is  they  are 
gathering  V  To  which  I  replied, c  I  do  not.'  '  Come  here,  then,* 
said  he,  '  and  I  will  shew  you.'  He  then  took  me  to  a  garner, 
and  bade  me  examine  the  wheat,  which  I  did,  and  when  I  took 
it  in  my  hand,  I  found  the  most  of  it  hollow  and  blasted,  and  but 
here  and  there  a  sound  grain  among  it.  He  then  asked, 4  Is  this 
grain  good  ?  To  which  I  replied, c  No,  it  is  hollow  and  blasted.' 
He  then  said, '  Come  with  me,  and  I  will  shew  you  a  harvest  to 
gather.'  He  then  took  me  to  a  beautiful  field  of  wheat,  and  said 
unto  me, L  Gather  that :'  and  then  he  left  me." 

Now,  reader,  it  was  this  that  the  young  man  related,  and 
said  was,  as  he  thought,  an  admonition  to  come  out  from  among 
them ;  and  to  this  dream  the  gentleman  alluded.  Can  you  blame 
him  for  his  great  sensibility  on  such  an  occasion?  Certainly  not. 
— But  the  society  with  which  you  are  connected,  sir,  ought  to 
be  the  last  to  object  to  visions  ;  for  it  is  well  known,  that  you 
have  been  greatly  imposed  upon  by  persons  pretending  to  super- 
natural revelations,  and  so  confident  have  you  been  that  God 
has  interfered  in  favour  of  your  society,  that  you  have  not  been 
ashamed  to  avow  it  openly.  If  you  want  evidence  of  this,  I 
have  it  in  my  power  to  assist  your  recollection. 

How,  sir,  could  you  have  the  effrontery  to  declare,  in  the  open 
manner  in  which  you  did,  that  the  Baptists  believe  and  teach, 
that  every  person  not  baptized  is  lost  ?  I  was  the  more  surprised 
at  this,  because  you  seemed  to  be  afraid  that  the  people  present 
would  not  hear  the  assertion,  and  lest  they  should  not,  you 
repeated  it  again  ;  and  my  surprise  is  not  a  little  increased  by 
hearing,  that  after  my  answer  to  your  address  at  the  wafer,  at 
our  next  ordinance  season,    you  again  insisted  on  the  same 


lb 

thing.  I  ask,  whence  did  you  obtain  your  information I  Was  it 
from  our  Confession  of  Faith  ?  or  did  either  yourself,  or  any  of 
your  brethren  ever  hear  a  Baptist  affirm  it  in  his  preaching  ? 
You  must  bear  with  me,  sir,  if  I  say  the  charge  is  entirely  false, 
and  that  you  knew  it  to  be  so,  and  that  the  reason  you  made  it 
was  for  want  of  argument.  I  now  challenge  you  to  furnish  proof 
of  it  from  any  of  our  writings,  or  Confessions  of  Faith  ;  and  if 
you  cannot,  you  must  forever  be  mistrusted  in  future.  What 
sufficiently  manifested  you  knew  the  reverse  to  be  true,  was, 
your  objecting  to  our  examining  persons  before  we  baptized 
them.  You  dare  not  deny  what  you  then  said  ;  and,  if  you 
dare  not,  pray,  sir,  what  is  the  examination  for  ?  Is  it  not  to 
ascertain  whether  the  candidates  be  gracious  persons  or  not  ? 
and  did  you  not  blame  us  for  this  our  strictness  ?  Does  not  our 
practice  in  this  fully  prove  the  falsity  of  your  charge,  and  that 
we  do  not  baptize  persons  unless  we  believe  them  to  be  christians 
already,  and  not  to  make  them  so,  as  you  have  asserted  \  But, 
sir,,  why  did  you  resort  to  such  pitiful  artifice  ?  I  will  tell  you. 
You  were  sensible  that  your  pretended  reasoning  would  not  bear 
the  test  of  examination,  and  lest  your  hearers  should  see  the 
weakness  of  your  cause,  there  was  no  other  expedient  that  could 
be  adopted  but  an  address  to  the  passions  of  the  audience,  to  stir 
up  their  prejudices,  so  as  to  prevent  them  from  searching  for 
themselves.  The  hue  and  cry  is  set  up  against  the  Baptists  thus :  . 
*■  See,  ye  mothers,  these  Baptists  will  have  none  to  go  to  heaven 
but  themselves — they  make  sprinkling  to  be  no  baptism,  and 
therefore  send  us  all  to  hell  as  unbaptized  persons.  Now  what 
is  to  become  of  your  babes  ?  are  they  in  hell  too  ?  Why  these 
wicked  Baptists  do  certainly  believe  in  the  damnation  of  infants, 
or  why  do  they  not  baptize  them  ?  Surely,  those  that  are  not  fit 
for  baptism,  are  not  fit  to  go  to  heaven.'  Thus  by  mere  declama- 
tion, and  an  address  to  the  passions,  the  auditory  are  led  off  from 
the  controversy.  Their  prejudices  being  roused,  they  become 
unprepared  to  examine  impartially,  and  under  such  false  impres- 
sions dismiss  the  subject  entirely  ;  but  not  without  many  woes 
denounced  against  the  cruel  and  hard-hearted  Baptists,  as  they 
cail  us. — You,  sir,  are  an  inveterate  enemy  to  the  Baptists,  and 
it  is  this  enmity  that  carries  you  all  the  lengths  you  go  ;  neither 
is  it  the  first  time  you  have  misrepresented  our  society,  and 
though  it  may  be  disagreeable  to  you  to  hear  it,  I  shall  relate  to 
the  reader  a  piece  of  your  public  prevarication,  that  must  stamp 
on  you  merited  disgrace,  and  shew  what  you  are  capable  oi\. 
aad  what  sort  of  an  antagonist  we  have  to  deal  with. 

Some  few  years  since,  this  famous  Methodist  champion 
commenced  an  attack  on  the  Baptists  in  the  neighbourhood  of 
Jacobs  Town,  New  jersey.    But  what  weapon  do  you  think  he 


17 

used,  reader  ?  Was  it  argument  ? — No,  no,  it  was  the  weapon 
with  which  he  excels,  and  which  he  so  dexterously  wielded  lately 
at  the  water.  He  obtained  the  Baptist  Confession  of  Faith, 
and,  if  my  memory  serves  me,  obtained  also  a  pamphlet  called 
the  Confession  of  the  Synod  of  Dort:  these  were  stitched  toge- 
ther, and  then,  in  a  crouded  assembly,  he  thus  -addressed  the 
people :  u  I  will  now,"  said  he,  "  shew  you  what  a  xvicked  people 
these  Baptists  are,  and  what  dreadful  doctrines  they  hold.  See, 
I  have  in  my  hand  the  Baptist  Confession  of  Faith,  and  to  con- 
vince you  that  I  do  not  charge  them  wrong,  shall  read  you  a 
paragraph."  Instead,  however,  of  reading  a  passage  out  of  the 
Baptist  Confession,  he  selected  one  from  the  other,  to  the  follow- 
ing purport :  a  God,  by  an  eternal  and  irreversible  decree,  hath 
predestinated  a  certain  number  to  eternal  salvation,  without 
regard  to  faith  or  good  works  ;  and,  by  the  same  eternal  and 
irreversible  decree,  he  hath  predestinated  the  rest  to  eternal 
damnation,  without  regard  to  unbelief or  evil  xvorks" — u  This," 
added  he,  "  is  the  creed  of  the  people  denominated  Baptists." 
A  minister,  who  afterwards  visited  Manahawkin  when  Mr. 
T.  was  at  that  place,  having  heard  of  the  imposition  practiced 
at  Jacobs  Town,  and  fearing  that  attempts  would  be  made  to 
deceive  the  people  at  this  place  also #,  he  publicly  mentioned 
the  circumstance,  and  declared,  that  if  Mr.  T.  had  announced 
the  above  as  the  Baptist  Confession  of  Faith,  he  was  either 
mistaken  or  worse! — An  interview  between  Mr.  T.  and  the 
gentleman  ensued  ;  when,  during  a  conversation  respecting  the 
above  affair,  and  from  the  circumstance  of  the  person  being  very 
near-sighted  Mr.  Totten  probably  supposing  he  should  not  be 
detected,  opened  a  Book  and  put  it  into  his  hand,  saying,  "  Is 
not  that  your  Confession  of  Faith  ?"  The  gentleman  having 
examined  it,  replied,  "  Yes,  this  is."  Mr.  T.  then  made  an 
attempt  to  take  back  the  book  :  but,  much  to  his  mortification, 
the  other  retained  it,  and  continued  turning  over  leaf  by  leaf, 
until  he  came  to  the  Confession  of  the  Synod  of  Dort,  and  then 
said,  "  This  is  not  ours,  sir,"  and  asked,  u  Did  you  not  know, 
Mr.  Totten,  that  this  is  not  the  Baptist  Confession  ?"  To  which 
Mr.  T.  answered,  u  Yes."  He  then  asked,  u  Did  you  then,  sir, 
mean  to  make  me  acknowledge  the  whole  of  this  book  to  be  the 
Baptist  Confession  of  Faith,  and  then  make  use  of  my  acknow- 
ledgement to  deceive  the  people."  To  which  Mr.  T.  made  no 
reply. 

*  It  seems  the  gentleman's  fears  respecting  Mr.  T's  designs  at  Manahaw- 
kin were  not  wholly  groundless.  There  was  a  meeting  house  there,  built  for  the 
Baptists  in  particular,  but  subject  to  the  use  of  other  societies  when  they  were 
not  occupying  it.  The  Baptist  minister  removing  from  thence  during  the 
revolutionary  war,  the  society  fell  into  decay.  The  Methodists  did  not  fail  to 
avail  themselves  of  so  favourable  an  opportunity,  and,  as  usual  in  such  cases, 


18 

Now,  reader,  you  have  a  portrait  of  the  man  ;  you  see  he 
will  stick  at  nothing  to  gain  a  favourite  point,  and  no  doubt  he 
concludes  the  end  will  justify  the  means  :  hut  do  you  admire 
the  likeness  ?  Can  you,  after  this,  believe  any  of  his  defamatory 
charges  against  the  Baptists  ? — This  is  the  man  that  boasted  of 
his  assurance  and  faithfulness  at  the  water  side,  in  the  presence 
of  thousands ! 

The  reader  may  ask,  *  But  do  you  not,  indeed,  hold  such  a 
sentiment,  that  unbaptized  persons  are  lost,  infants  as  well  as 
others  ?  If  you  do  not,  how  has  the  report  gained  such  circula- 
tion, and  from  what  source  could  it  originate  ? — To  the  public 
we  owe  it  as  a  duty  to  render  every  satisfaction  ;  but  as  to  our 
accusers,  we  need  take  no  pains  with  them,  because  they  know 
better,  and  only  use  it  for  party  purposes ;  and  were  they  refuted 
a  thousand  times,  would  still  repeat  the  slander.  When  we 
declare  infants  are  not  to  be  baptized,  it  is  not  because  we  doubt 
the  salvation  of  such  as  die  in  infancy ;  for  we  do  most  assuredly 
believe,  that  all  deceased  infants,  whether  they  are  the  offspring 
of  believers  or  not,  are  saved  by  the  atonement  of  Christ :  but 
the  reason  we  object  to  their  baptism  is,  because  there  is  no 
example  of  their  being  baptized  by  Christ  or  his  apostles — and 
because  faith  and  repentance  are  required  of  the  subjects  of 
baptism,  of  which  infants  are  entirely  incapable — and  likewise, 
because  baptism  is  an  ordinance  preparatory  to  church  fellowship, 
of  which  it  is  clear  they  are  incapable  also. — Our  reason  for  not 
sitting  down  at  the  Lord's  table  with  such  christians  as  have 
been  sprinkled,  but  not  baptized,  is  not  because  we  doubt  their 
piety,  or  whether  they  will  finally  arrive  at  glory.  No  :  of  this 
we  have  no  doubt ;  we  firmly  believe,  that  all  pious  people  will 
rise  to  heaven,  whether  baptized  or  not.  But  we  do  not  com- 
mune with  them,  because  we  believe  baptism  to  be  a  prerequisite 
to  the  Lord's  table,  and  that  such  as  are  even  the  children  of 

occupied  the  house  entirely  as  though  it  were  their  own.  In  this  situation  of 
their  affairs,  the  Baptist  Association  appointed  some  of  their  body  to  visit  and 
preach  to  such  of  the  people  as  still  remained ;  who,  on  going  thither,  found 
but  five  members  of  the  church  who  had  survived.  They,  however,  entered 
upon  their  duties,  and  such  was  the  power  that  attended  their  ministry,  in  a 
short  time  many  souls  were  awakened,  and  after  having  savingly  believed  in 
Christ,  were  baptized  on  a  profession  of  their  faith.  And  this  was  not  all :  the 
the  love  which  the  people  formerly  had  for  the  Baptist  society  returned,  the 
expression  of  public  sentiment  was  in  their  favour,  and  a  manifest  preference 
given  to  them;  some  of  the  members  of  the  Methodist  society  were  convinced 
of  baptism  and  united  with  the  Baptists,  others  were  very  uneasy.  The  two 
societies  continued  to  worship  in  the  same  house  alternately,  until  at  last  the 
Methodists  tried  by  stratagem  to  turn  the  Baptists  out  altogether  :  but  failing 
in  this,  and  fearing  the  total  dissolution  of  their  society  by  the  force  of  truth, 
ttiej  finally  went  off  of  their  own  accord,  and  built  a  house  for  themselves. — 
In  the  schemes  which  were  here  devised  for  dispossessing  theBaptir.ts  M.  T. 
•  ztulouziy  and  actively  took  a  par*. 


19 

God  have  no  right  there,  until  they  have  submitted  to  Christ's 
command  ;  and  if,  under  such  circumstances,  we  were  to  admit 
them,  it  would  be  an  encouragement  to  persist  in  disobedience 
to  Christ.  When,  for  these  reasons,  we  refuse  to  commune 
with  them,  our  enemies  take  the  advantage,  as  this  man  has 
done,  and  presently  report,  that  the  Baptists  deny  any  persons 
to  be  christians  but  themselves,  and  affirm  the  damnation  of 
infants. — But  the  question  between  us  is  not,  who  shall  be  saved,* 
but  who  are  to  be  baptized^  and  what  is  baptism. 

That  no  dependence  is  placed  by  us  on  baptism,  as  a  saving 
ordinance,  mast  be  evident  to  every  unprejudiced  mind ;  because 
we  baptize  none  but  professing  believers* — we  always  refuse 
receiving  persons  that  look  upon  baptism  to  be  a  saving  ordi- 
nance— in  every  instance  they  are  interrogated  on  that  head 
first.  In  our  Confession  of  Faith  we  have  declared  the  reverse 
in  the  following  words  :  u  Baptism  is  an  ordinance  of  the  New 
Testament,  ordained  by  Jesus  Christ,  to  be  unto  the  party 
baptized,  a  sign  of  his  fellowship  with  him  in  his  death  and 
resurrection — -of  his  being  engrafted  into  him — of  remission 
of  sins — and  of  his  giving  up  unto  God,  through  Jesus  Christ, 
to  live  and  walk  in  newness  of  life.  Those  who  do  actually 
profess  repentance  towards  God,  faith  in,  and  obedience  to  our 
Lord  Jesus,  are  the  only  proper  subjects  of  this  ordinance." — 
If  we  believed  baptism  would  save,  should  we  not  then  admin- 
ister it  to  our  children  ?  Or  are  we  more  deficient  in  love  to 
our  offspring  than  others  ?  But  you  still  object,  that  if  we  deny 
the  right  of  children  and  of  unbaptized  believers  (for  we  deem 
all  such  unbaptized,  who  have  not  been  immersed)  to  church 
membership,  we  do  in  effect,  though  not  in  word,  thereby  denv 
that  they  will  be  saved;  because,  say  you,  if  they  are  not  worthy 
of  church  membership,  much  less  are  they  meet  for  the  kingdom 
of  God.  This  mode  of  reasoning  appears  to  me  very  incorrect, 
because  it  makes  church  membership  essential  to  salvation,  or, 
at  least,  it  supposes  such  as  are  church  members  must  neces- 
sarily go  to  heaven  :  but  we  firmly  believe,  that  thousands  are 
now  in  heaven,  who  never  were  baptized,  nor  yet  united  with 
a  christian  church  of  any  order  ;  and  we  are  equally  sensible, 
that  there  are  thousands  who  have  have  been  connected  with  the 
church  of  Christ,  as  its  visible  members,  who  are,  notwith- 
standing, now  excluded  from  the  presence  of  God. 

But  this  charge  with  more  propriety  may  be  urged  against  the 
gentleman  ;  for  it  is  certain  that  all  his  reasonings  went  to  prove, 
that  Abraham  and  his  natural  posterity,  even  all  of  tht 
the  believing  people  of  God  ;   and,  to  vindicate  the 
infants  to  church  "nembership  now,  he  affirmed  that  the  Jewish 
and  gospel  church  were  the  same,  and  that  as  Abraham  and  his 


20 

natural  infant  posterity  were  members  of  the  then  church,  so 
believers  and  their  children  are  members  of  the  gospel  church. 
You  now  perceive,  reader,  that  the  gentleman  made  no  pro- 
vision for  the  infants  of  Gentiles  then,  nor  yet  for  the  infants  of 
unbelievers  now  :  but  has  left  them  in  the  hand  of  the  devil,  or 
to  "  the  uncovenanted  mercy  of  God"  as  a  late  author  terms  it'*. 

Our  opponents  are  reduced  to  a  great  difficulty,  and  one  out  of 
which  they  never  will  be  able  to  extricate  themselves  ;  for,  in 
order  to  have  infants  into  the  church,  they  insist  on  their  interest 
in  the  covenant  of  grace,  by  virtue  of  being  the  children  of 
believing  parents ;  neither  do  they  pretend  to  say  that  this  is  the 
right  of  dl  infants,  by  which  they  deny  the  infants  of  unbelievers 
to  be  in  a  state  of  salvation,  and  do  virtually  teach,  that  their 
state  is  a  dangerous  one. 

The  Posdobaptists,  in  setting  up^i  defence  of  infant  church 
membership  under  the  gospel,  had  to  infer  their  right  from  the 
Jewish  church.  They  could  not  extend  it  wider  than  to  Abra- 
ham and  his  posterity ;  for,  had  they  made  the  whole  world  the 
church  then,  the  whole  world  must,  according  to  their  reasoning, 
be  the  church  now ;  and,  of  course,  the  whole  world  become 
the  "  believing-  people  of  God"  But  no ;  it  seems  it  would 
not  suit,  that  Jew  and  Gentile  were  alike  in  the  church  of  old ; 
an$  if  church  membership  being  denied,  implies  (as  our  oppo- 
nents affirm  concerning  the  Baptists)  an  affirmation  that  children 
are  lost,  then  the  Jews  by  such  a  denial,  and  those  who  make 
the  gospel  church  to  consist  only  of  believers  and  their  seed,  do 
by  a  like  denial  of  membership  to  the  children  of  others  who  are 
not  believers ;  I  say  they  do,  in  thus  declaring,  affirm  the  damna- 
tion of  by  far  the  greatest  part  of  infants  born  into  the  world; 
for  the  majority  of  such  are  not  the  children  of  believers,  but  of 
unbelievers.  Nov/  to  demonstrate  the  truth  of  this  position,  I 
would  address  a  lew  questions  to  the  gentleman,  and  also  subjoin 
the  reply  he  must  make,  unless  he  abandons  the  ground  he  has 
taken  ;  and  the  result  will  be,  that  he  must  either  give  up  his 
slanders  about  the  Baptists  sending  children  to  hell,  because 
they  will  not  baptize  them,  or  else  the  charge  is  fastened  on 
himself  and  brethren. 

Q.  Do,  Mr,  Totten,  tell  me,  what  was  the  church  of  old  ;  did 
it  consist  of  Jews  only,  or  were  all  the  Gentile  nations  incorpo- 
rated with  them  ? 

A.  Abraham  and  his  children  were  then  in  the  church,  and 
■  »nly, 

Q.  Who  ore  members  of  a  gospel  church  now  ? 

A.  Believers  and  their  children,  and  only  such. 

*  See  Rev  Mr  Berride:e*s  Christian  World  Unmasked. 


21 

Q.  How  do  you  prove,  that  believers  and  their  children  are 
now  in  the  gospel  church  ? 

A.  Because  Abraham  and  all  his  children  were  in  the  Jewish, 
and  then  his  infants  were,  as  well  as  himself ;  and  as  the  gospel 
church  is  one  and  the  same  church,  we  infer  that  infants  of 
believers  are  now  members. 

Q.  How  were  die  infants  of  J ewish  parents  brought  in,  and 
also  how  are  the  infants  of  believers  now  brought  in  i 

A.  The  first  were  brought  in  at  eight  days  old  by  circumcision, 
and  children  are  now  at  the  same  age  to  be  brought  in  by  baptism; 
that  is,  the  children  of  believers. 

Q.  Then  the  infants  of  gentiles  were  not  church  members, 
nor  are  the  infants  of  unbelievers  church  members  now  ? 

A.  No;  the  children  of  uncircumcised  gentiles  were  not 
members  ;  and  so  the  children  of  uncircumcised,  or  unrenewed 
persons,  are  not  members  now. 

Now,  sir,  you  blame  the  Baptists  for  net  admitting  infants 
into  membership  ;  but  wherein  do  you  differ  from  us  ?  do  you 
not  deny  also  membership  to  the  children  of  unbelievers  ?  You 
also  declare  that  the  Baptists,  in  denying  baptism  to  infants,  do 
in  effect  say  they  are  damned.  Do  you  not  perceive,  that  if 
what  you  say  of  us  is  true,  that  the  charge  lies  equally  against 
yourself;  for  you  do  affirm,  that  none  but  the  children  of 
believers  are  to  be  admitted  into  the  church  ?  But,  in  order  to 
extricate  yourself,  the  answer  will  be,  that  you  will  baptize  any 
infant,  and  that  in  doing  this  you  avoid  the  imputation. 

How  amazing  the  inconsistency  of  Pcedobaptists !  Sometimes 
Abraham  and  his  posterity  are  made  the  figure  of  believers  and 
their  children  ;  but  then,  perceiving  that  this  would  not  make 
the  platform  broad  enough,  they  presently  run  from  it,  drop  the 
figure,  and  will  have  every  thing  to  be  the  church.  If  we 
allowed  all  these  gentlemen  want,  that  is,  that  the  gospel  church 
is  the  Jewish  church  continued,  and  that  they  might  infer  mem- 
bership for  the  seed  of  believers  from  the  circumstance  of 
Abraham's  infant  offspring  being  in  that;  I  say,  should  we  grant 
it,  on  condition  they  would  act  consistent  with  themselves,  such 
a  restriction  as  they  plead  for  would  not  satisfy  them :  their  plea 
for  the  infants  of  believers  is  a  mere  pretext  for  an  unlimited 
extention  of  infant  baptism. 

It  is  really  ridiculous  in  them  to  shift  their  ground  so  often, 
for  with  one  breath  they  confine  membership  to  the  seed  of 
believers  only,  and  then  run  right  away  and  sprinkle  the  seed  of 
unbelievers,  and,  as  a  warrant,  point  to  the  Jewish  church  ; 
whereas  it  is  evident  the  Jews  never  pretended  that  the  children 
utiles,  as  such,  had  a  right  to  eireumci  i 


Would  you,  Mr.  Totten,  in  order  to  shew  your  boasted 
liberality^  had  you  lived  under  that  dispensation,  have  gone 
forth  and  circumcised  the  children  of  gentiles,  when  their 
parents  still  remained  separate  from  the  congregation  of  the 
Jews  ?  If  you  would  not,  and  yet  persist  in  saying  the  Jewish 
was  a  figure  of  the  gospel  church,  how  dare  you  then  administer 
what  you  call  baptism  to  the  children  of  unbelievers  ?  Did  you 
<  v.  r  hear  of  a  Jew   acting  so  inconsistently,  and  afterward 

iid  to  plead  a  divine  warrant  ?  If  not,  which  you  certainly 

not,  do  you  indeed  act  according  to  your  pretended  model  ? 
Would  you  say  that  circumcision  would  have  been  administered 
to  the  children  of  a  gentile  on  his  demanding  it  for  them,  while  the 
parent  himself  would  not  submit  to  it?  If  you  do,  I  challenge  you 
to  Furnish  a  precedent :  but  if  you  do  not  so  affirm,  I  still  repeat 
the  question,  how  dare  you,  in  the  presence  of  God,  administer 
what  you  call  baptism  to  the  children  of  those  who  are  even 
revilers  of  the  gospel  of  Christ  ?  If  you  would  have  circumcised 
the  children  of  the  gentiles  indiscriminately,  then  what  you  say  of 
the  Jewish  church  (that  it  was  composed  only  of  Abraham  and 
his  posterity,  together  with  the  gentile  proselytes)  is  false,  and 
the  church  in  that  case  must  have  embraced  all  nations  ;  and  so 
must  your  inferences  be  false  in  making  believers  and  their 
children  now  the  church  of  God.  To  constitute  your  inference 
or  conclusion  perfect,  the  whole  world  must  be  the  church  of 
Christ  now,  because  you  will  admit  any  to  ordinances.  You 
now,  sir,  must  see  that  you  are  reduced  to  the  necessity  of  either 
giving  up  your  Jewish  church  as  a  model,  or,  if  you  will  have  it, 
then  you  must  cease  to  baptize  the  children  of  unbelievers — 
Which  w ill  you  take  ?  If  you  give  up  the  Jewish  church  as  your 
model,  then,  alas  for  you,  all  your  arguments  for  infant  baptism 
are  gone  at  a  stroke  ;  for  infant  church  membership  as  then 
existing,  is  all  you  can  bring  to  justify  your  present  practice. 
But  if  you  will  keep  your  model  of  a  gospel  church  ;  to  be 
consistent,  you  must  cease  to  baptize  the  children  of  unbelievers 
(for  remember  you  make  baptism  come  in  the  place  of  circum- 
c  sion),  and  then,  to  be  sure,  you  must  of  course  be  deemed  an 
uncharitable  man,  and  the  same  charge  rests  upon  you  that  you 
have  urged  against  the  Baptists ;  that  because  you  would  not 
baptize  them,  you  must  needs  believe  they  are  lost.  You  are 
uow  touched  in  a  tender  place,  and  as  the  saying  is,  "  slain  with 
your  own  wi  ■  pom"  You  will  surely,  sir,  after  this,  be  more 
in  charging  us  thus,  especially  as  it  recoils  on  yourselves. 
Id  ever  have  thought  of  using  such  arguments  had 
it  not  betn,  that  an  appeal  to  the  feelings  of  a  mother  has  done 

for  .he  cause  of  infant  sprinkling,  than  all  that  has  been 

r  w  ritten  in  its  favour. 


23 

Did  we  ever  hear  of  such  charges  being  preferred  against  the 
Jews  for  not  circumcising  the  children  of  gentiles  ?  Would  any 
gentile  say  to  the  Jewish  priest,  '  Sir,  you  only  circumcise  the 
children  of  Jews,  why  do  you  not  perform  the  rite  on  our 
infants  also  ; — see,  ye  mothers,  these  wicked  Jews  think  that 
our  children  will  all  be  damned,  for  they  will  not  circumcise 
them  !'  Would  not  the  Jew  have  replied  thus  :  c  We  do  not 
circumcise  our  own  children  because  we  think  it  will  save  them , 
neither  do  we  refrain  from  circumcising  yours  because  we  t 
t.hcv  will  be  lost :  but  we  do  the  one  because  we  are  commar  . 
and  omit  the  other  because  no  such  command  exists.'  Such 
precisely,  would  be  the  answer  of  a  Baptist  concerning  baptism  ; 
for  we  do  not  baptize  infants,  because  Ave  have  no  command  so 
to  do  ;  and  we  are  fully  of  opinion  that  if  it  would  have  been 
rebellion  in  the  Jews  (which  it  certainly  would)  to  circumcise 
the  children  of  gentiles  as  such,  without  a  command  ;  in  like 
manner  it  would  be  rebellion  in  us  to  baptize  without  a  command; 
and  that,  as  in  the  first  case,  no  Jew  ever  pretended  to  such  a 
right,  it  would  be  equally  absurd  and  wicked  for  a  gospel 
minister  to  act  thus. 

But  to  conclude  my  remarks  on  this  ridiculous  assertion,  we 
challenge  our  opponents  to  furnish  anv  thing  from  our  writings, 
or  from  any  other  quarter,  to  prove  that  we  make  baptism  a 
saving  ordinance  ;  and  I  now  solemnly  assert,  that  it  is  not  the 
sentiment  of  the  society,  nor  is  it  my  sentiment,  nor  did  anv 
person  ever  hear  me  so  affirm  ;  and  I  am  bold  to  declare  the 
charge  destitute  of  all  truth,  and  that  our  opponents  have  inferred 
it  merely  from  our  denying  the  right  of  infants  to  baptism,  and 
have  found  their  account  in  propagating  it, 

I  am  disposed,  sir,  to  dispute  your  claim  to  liberality,  and 
the  more  so,  because  it  can  easily  be  made  appear,  that  what  you 
term  charity  and  benevolence,  deserves  quite  a  different  name. 
You  told  us  at  the  water  s:de?  that  "  your  society  were  no  bigots, 
did  not  lord  it  over  the  consciences  of  christians,  and  that 
they  thought  zvas  right,  you  would  not  object  to ;"  and  then  you 
gave  yourselves  a  great  deal  of  credit  for  being  so  exceedingly 
complaisant  in  religious  matters.     Now,  sir,  give  me  icave^to 
say,  that  such  sentiment  is  the  most  monstrous  impietv ;  and  if 
the  principle  is  admitted  and  carried  to  its  full  extent,  there  is 
of  necessity  an  end  of  all  religion.    Will  you  pretend  to 
the  apostles  practiced  differently  at  different  times  :    1 1 
I  ask  for  proof ;  if  net,  then  there  was  but  one  mode 
practiced.     Now,  sir,  whatever  that  mode  was,  which  Chri 
and  the  apostles  submitted  to  and  practiced,  do  you  im 
they  would  have  deviated  from  it  under  the  specious  pretcne 
being  thou  ght  liberal  ?  You,  above  all  oth  e 


24 

lo  maintain  your  ground,  and  that  because  of  your  very  different 
administrations ;  for  as  your  practice  varies,  you  must  cf  course 
be  different  from  the  primitive  mode  at  one  time  or  the  other. 
You  did  indeed  make  your  boast,  that  you  must  be  right  "  some- 
times at  least"  as  you  followed  "  every  mode  that  ever  had,  been 
in  use ;"  but,  sir,  you  had  not  sufficient  sagacity  to  see,  that  this 
was  a  complete  acknowledgment,  that  you  must  have   gone 
entirely  wrong  at  other  times  ;  yea,  and  in  this  declaration,  did 
you  not  forfeit  your  character  as  an  honest  man  in  the  things  of 
God,  as  you  admitted  all  the  ways  practiced  could  net  be  right, 
and  yet  you  justified  the  practice?     Did  you  mean  to  insinuate 
that  the  word  of  God  is  obscure — that  it  is  impossible  to  know 
with  certainty  the  divine  will ;  and  men  were  left  at  liberty  to 
follow  their  own  inventions  ?  yea,  that  New  Testament  ordi- 
nances were  left  entirely  in  the  dark,  and  that  Christ,  who  is  a 
son  over  his  own  house,  had  been  less  particular  in  pointing  out 
his  worship,  than  Moses  the  servant  was,  who  even  descended 
to  point  out  the  colour  of  garments — ordered  a  red  heifer  for 
sacrifice,  and  even  directed  the  size  and  form  of  snuffers  and 
candlesticks  ?  Do  not  such  insinuations,  sir,  tend  to  scepticism, 
create  doubt  about  other  parts  of  the  divine  word,  and  make 
persons  indifferent  as  to  the  service  they  render  to  God?  You, 
sir,  in  this  pretended  liberality,  set  up  the  judgment  of  men  in 
opposition  to  the  law  of  God  ;  for  the  principle  is  this ;  that  if  a 
man  expresses  a  desire  to  serve  God,  and  with  this  view  sets 
about  what  he  thinks  to  be  religious  duties,  but  nevertheless 
goes  wrong  entirely  ;  yet,  as  long  as  he  is  sincere,  and  thinks  he 
is  right,  he  does  no  harm  in  acting  contrary  to  a  divine  law  ; 
hut  this  very  service  is  fully  as  acceptable  in  God's  sight  as  if  he 
had  scrupulously  performed  his  will.     By  this  it  would  appear, 
that  not  what  God  says  to  be  right,  is  so ;  but  what  a  man  thinks 
is  proper,  let  it  be  ever  so  contrary  to  the  divine  command,  is 
right,  and  of  course  the  man  knows  better  than  his  Lawgiver. 
But,  sir,  where  will  you  stop  if  you  admit  this  principle  i  Do 
vcu  not  perceive,  that  it  aims  a  deadly  blow  at  all  practical 
religion  ?  It  will  not  do  for  you  to  pause  at  baptism  ;  for  if  you 
teach  men  to  get  over  one  positive  ordinance  in  this  way,  they  can 
with  equal  ease  surmount  all  the  rest ;  they  have  only  to  plead 
sincerity  for  their  excuse,  when  they  set  ail  the  laws  of  God  at 
defiance  ;  and  it  will  be  impossible  for  you  to  attack  any  of 
their  vices,  having  admitted  the  above  principle,  and  fur:  ; 
them  with  such  an  admirable  excuse  for  breaking  the  divine  law. 
Now,  sir,  let  us  try  what  sort  of  work  you  would  make  of  it  in 
reforming  a  transgressor,  who  pleads  your  excuse  for  his  1 
of  the  divine  law  ;  and  let  me  beseech  you  candiel y  to  examine 
the  very  pernicious  tendency  of  the  principle  which  you  have 


wrongly  named  liberality.  To  set  this  forth,  I  will  introduce 
you  to  one  of  your  members,  and  suppose  a  variety  of  cases, 
thus  : 

Minister.  Brother  P.  you  have  lived  very  improperly  of  late, 
and  I  have  been  very  uneasy  about  you  ;  pray  how  can  you  rest 
thus  ? 

P.  Do  sir,  point  out  my  improprieties,  and  if  you  convince 
me,  I  will  forsake  them. 

M.  Why,  sir,  you  attend  the  theetre — visit  places  of  amuse- 
ment— play  at  cards — you  dance — -besides,  you  do  not  attend 
the  Lord's  Supper,  nor  pray  in  your  family,  nor  yet  pray  in 
private. 

P.  Whv,  sir,  all  those  places  of  amusement  I  consider  entirely 
innocent ;  and  as  for  praying  and  attending  the  supper,  I  do  not 
see  it  my  duty  ;  for  I  look  upon  these  things  to  be  mere  outward 
form,  and  praying  and  communing  I  consider  as  an  inward 
work  only  :  and  I  am  sincere  in  my  belief  of  these  things. 

M.  But  some  of  these  things  are  commanded  to  be  done  in 
the  word  of  God,  and  others  of  them  are  discouraged  ;  surely 
you  will  not  do  what  is  in  the  one  instance  forbidden,  and  omit 
that  which  is  commanded. 

P.  But,  sir,  you  have  often  said,  that  what  a  man  thinks  to  be 
right  is  so  :  now  I  do  think  I  am  doing  right  in  acting  thus  ; 
therefore  it  cannot  be  wrong,  or  else  my  conscience  would 
accuse  me. 

M.  But  I  only  said  so  about  baptism,  not  other  things. 

P.  But  is  net  baptism  a  command,  and  is  not  the  mode  clearly 
revealed?  yet  have  you  not  repeatedly  said  in  my  hearing,  that 
though  a  man  might  be  wrong  in  this,  yet  if  he  were  sincere, 
God  would  not  require  it  of  him  ;  and  does  not  the  authority 
of  God  as  much  suffer  in  one  deviation  as  in  another  ? 

It  is  easy  to  perceive  the  difficulty  in  which  Mr.  Totten  would 
be  placed,  and  that  he  would  either  have  to  tolerate  every  vice, 
or  else  abandon  the  false  position.  This  doctrine  would  lead 
to  a  complete  justification  of  the  error  of  the  papists,  concerning 
the  ordinances  ;  nor  would  you,  sir,  on  your  principle,  be  able 
to  resist  them.  Were  a  catholic  to  address  ycu  thus :  c  Sir,  I 
desire  you  to  administer  to  me  the  supper  of  the  Lord ;  but  you 
must  in  doing  this  conform  tc  the  doctrine  of  cur  church,  and 
instead  of  giving  me  broken  bread,  consecrate  a  wafer,  which, 
when  so  consecrated,  becomes  really  and  substantially  the  very 
flesh  of  Christ ;  and  you  must  drink  the  wine  yourself,  not 
nting  any  part  to  me.'  In  vain  would  you,  sir,  object  that 
the  bread  underwent  no  change  of  substance — that  the  v/ine,  as 
well  as  the  bread,  was  to  be  received  by  the  communicant ;  and 
that  the  wHole  was  contrary  to  the  primitive  administration, 


26 

and  also  to  the  sentiments  of  your  society ;  for  he  would  answer 
all  these  objections  with  your  assertion,  that  what  a  man  believed 
to  be  right,  is  tight,  that  these  are  little  non-essentials,  that 
every  man  is  to  judge  for  himself  in  such  things,  and  that 
ters  are  to  be  liberal  and  receive  all  the  children  of  God  : 
moreover,  his  plea  of  sincerity  would  silence  you  effectually. 
But  to  bring  the  matter  still  nearer  home,  should  a  person  of 
the  same  denomination  demand  baptism  of  you,  at  the  same 
time  assuring  you,  that  you  must  use  salt  and  spittle  in  the 
ordinance,  and  thai  he  verily  believed  that  baptism  was  not 
complete  without  them  ;  here,  sir,  in  like  manner,  you  dare  not 
object,  and  in  order  to  be  thought  liberal  in  sentiment,  you 
must  conform  to  his  demand,  and  that  because  it  is  his  opinion 
and  he  is  sincere  in  it. 

You  do  indeed,  sir,  dearly  earn  the  epithet  of  liberal ;  it  is  at 
the  expence  of  God's  authority, — it  is  by  trampling  under  foot 
his  ordinances,  setting  up  the  ignorance,  false  reason,  and  preju- 
dices of  men  in  their  place.  You  are,  it  seems,  all  condescension 
to  men,  and  are  free  ;o  change  the  laws  of  God  to  please  them  j 
and  are  more  afraid  to  displease  man  than  God.  Whence,  sir, 
did  you  receive  a  power  to  dispense  with  divine  laws  ?  was  it 
from  God  you  received  it  ?  O  horrid  blasphemy  ! ! !  Are  you 
not  afraid,  sir,  thus  to  offend  the  Lord  ?  Remember  that  Nadab 
and  Abihu  offered  real  incense,  and  in  censors  also,  yet 
they  were  struck  dead  for  doing  this  with  common  fire,  instead 
of  that  from  the  altar  of  the  Lord.  Your  doctrine  would  make 
this  a  trifle,  and  charge  God  with  cruelty  in  this  thing.  Did 
notUzzah  lose  his  life  for  only  putting  forth  his  hand  to  keep  the 
ark  from  overturning,  which  he  did  also  out  of  a  pious  motive, 
even  to  preserve  the  ark  from  falling ;  and  yet  this  did  not 
excuse  him,  because  God  had  forbidden  any  to  touch  it  but 
priests  ?  Did  not  the  men  of  Bethshemesh,  to  the  number  of 
fifty  thousand,  (1  Sam.  7.  19.)  perish  for  only  looking  into  the 
ark  I  Did  not  Moses  for  his  striking  the  rock  twice,  instead  of ' 
merely  speaking  to  it  as  God  commanded,  so  displease  the 
Lord,  that  he  was  forbidden  to  enter  the  land  of  rest  ?  Did  not 
Saul  lose  his  kingdom  for  offering  sacrifice,  and  that  to  God  too, 
and  in  a  right  manner  also  ;  but  this  on  account  of  his  having 
no  command  thus  to  do  ?  Did  not  the  Lord  charge  the  Israelites 
with  having  gone  away  from  his  ordinances,  even  from  the  days 
of  old,  and  declare  they  were  cursed  with  a  curse  on  that,  as 
well  as  on  other  accounts:  Mai.  iii.  7.  Why  need  the  ancients 
have  suffered  persecution  if  they  had  held  your  accommodating 
doctrine?  Would  the  church  of  Home  have  ever  persecuted 
them  if  they  had  acted  as  you  do,  calling  (lie  institutions  of  God. 
little  things,  and  deeming  such  persons  as  conformed  to  pop 


27 

opinion  the  only  liberal  persons  ?  No,  verily,  they  would  have 
been  caressed  instead  of  being  put  to  death  ;  for  if  Paul  had 
preached  circumcision  in  order  to  please  the  Jews,  he  declares 
the  offence  of  the  cross  would  have  ceased,  Gal.  v.  10. 

And,  sir,  under  the  specious  pretence  of  charity,  you  and 
your  brethren  have  set  up  the  hue  and  cry  against  the  asse  iters 
of  God's  authority — have  made  bold  to  call  such  as  affirm,  that 
men  have  no  right  to  change  divine  ordinances,  by  the  odious 
name  of  u  bigots  ;"  while  you  have  audaciously  declared  those 
to  be  the  only  friends  of  Christ,  who  give  men  liberty  to  alter  the 
worship  of  God.  You,  sir,  are  afraid  of  the  cross,  you  love  to 
go  with  the  multitude  ;  but  although  such  conduct  may  make 
vou  pass  for  a  liberal  man  now,  a  little  while  and  the  scene  wTill 
be  changed,  and  God  himself  will  declare  whose  conduct  he 
approves,  whether  time-servers,  or  such  as  have  nobly  withstood 
innovation  and  stuck  to  his  precepts. 

You  very  indecently  laughed  at  the  different  methods  of 
baptizing  the  persons  on  that  occasion  ;  and  in  order  to  pass  for 
a  wit,  to  the  no  small  interruption  of  the  assembly,  you  expressed 
yourself  very  irreverently.  At  one  time  with  extended  voice 
you  ask,  "  If  it  required  such  a  length  of  time  to  baptize  so  few 
persons,  how  could  three  thousand  have  been  baptized  in  one 
day  by  the  apostles  r"  and  this  you  accompanied  with  a  laugh  of 
scorn.  Then  you  again,  as  if  void  of  all  shame,  cry  out,  when 
one  was  immersed  lace  foremost,  "  See  there,  did  I  not  tell  you 
that  persons  may  be  baptized  different  ways  !" 

As  you  are  unquestionably  the  Solomon  of  the  age,  and 
without  an  equal  for  clearing  up  doubts,  it  will  not  be  taken 
amiss  by  you,  should  I  notice  your  witty,  or  rather  nonsensical 
observations.  Pray,  sir,  did  you  mean  to  insinuate,  that  the 
scriptural  account  of  three  thousand  being  added  to  the  church 
in  one  clay  (Acts  ii.  4.)  was  not  to  be  credited  ?  or  did  you  wish 
to  be  understood  that  they  could  not  have  been  baptized  that 
day,  unless  it  were  done  by  sprinkling,  and  as  a  reason  for  such 
sentiment  object  to  the  length  of  time  your  brother  took  in 
immersing  the  thirteen  persons  who  were  candidates  ?  If  you 
meant  the  first,  then  you  rendered  no  small  service  to  your 
deistical  hearers,  and  confirmed  them  not  a  little  in  their  con- 
tempt for  the  inspired  writers  ;  neither  was  that  the  alone 
instance  in  which  you  lent  them  vour  aid  on  that  day.  It  must 
have  afforded  them  sport  to  hear  a  professed  minister  of  Christ 
doubt  a  narrative  in  the  scriptures,  and  they  certainly  were  the 
more  confirmed  in  their  opinion,  that  religion  is  mere  priest-craft. 
But  if  you  meant  the  latter^  you  might  have  spared  all  your 
wit,  for  the  text  does  not  nay  that  three  thousand  were  baptized 
in  one  day,  but  only  that  diev  were  added  to  the  church  in  one 


28 

day  ;  and  it  is  not  improbable  they  were  baptized  at  different 
times  preceding.  But  if  it  had  been  said  they  were  baptized 
in  om  day,  would  it  have  been  impossible  for  the  seventv 
disciples  whom  Christ  had  sent  into  the  ministry,  (Luke  x.  17.) 
and  the  twelve  apostles,  to. have  done  this  in  oae  day  ?  Allowing 
them  to  be  present,  and  it  lays  on  you  to  prove  they  were  not ; 
then  if  each  one  of  them  baptized  thirty-seven  persons,  the 
number  so  baptized,  would  amount  to  more  than  three  thousands 
Now,  sir,  how  ridiculous  does  such  a  little,  mean,  and  pitiful 
objection  appear  !  and  how  indefensible  must  a  cause  be,  that 
needs  such  quibbling  to  support  it !  But  we  cannot  forbear  the 
smile,  that  because  a  Methodist  preacher,  who  does  not  under- 
stand the  business,  makes  an  aukward  hand  of  it,  and  spends 
three  hours  in  doing  what  a  Baptist  could  perform  in  less  than 
one,  this  very  deficiency  on  their  part,  must  be  charged  to  the 
account  of  the  Baptises  !  Why,  sir,  your  brother  did  the  best  he 
could,  and  no  doubt  will  so  improve  in  time,  that  he  will 
perform  it  as  decently  and  expeditiously,  as  a  Baptist  would 
have  done  ;  and  this  is  reasonable  to  expect,  as  the  Methodists 
are  becoming  Baptists  rapidly.  But  you  would  infer,  that  to 
immerse  must  take  up  much  more  time  than  to  sprinkle  ?  this, 
however,  is  not  so  clear  as  you  would  wish  it  to  be  ;  for  it  must 
certainly  take  a  Pcedobaptbt  as  long  to  pronounce  the  name  of 
the  Trinity  over  the  candidate,  as  it  would  a  Baptist.  The 
difference  of  the  time  between  putting  the  hand  into  water, 
and  sprinkling  it  on  the  face,  and  putting  a  person  under  the 
water,  and  then  raising  him  up,  would  be  trifling.  But  then, 
our  brethren  in  their  wisdom  have  supposed  many  probable 
ways  were  in  use  to  dispatch  business  ;  for  the  saving  of  labour 
in  their  account  is  not  a  small  matter.  Some  will  have  it,  that 
the  jews  stood  in  ranks  in  the  waters  of  Jordan  ;  others,  that 
they  were  onlv  at  the  water  ed^e ;  then  comes  John,  sav  some, 
with  a  shell  (for  he  was  too  poor  to  have  a  pitcher)  and  flings  it 
on  perhaps  a  dozen  of  them  at  a  time  ;  but  others  arm  him  with 

"  A  scoop,  or  squirt,  or  some  such  thing, 
"  Whereby  ingenious  John  did  fling, 

"  Full  drive,  the  wat^r  on  the  rank 

"  Of  candidates  that  lin'd  the  bank." 

Do  not  smile,  reader,  at  the  idea  of  labour  being  saved  in 
religion,  for  such  is  the  ingenuity  of  our  Methodist  brethren, 
that  they  have  imitated  the  famous  spinning  machines  of  old 
England,  which,  you  know,  does  the  work  of  many  at  once  ; 
and  it  is  no  uncommon  thing  for  them  to  call  on  all  such  as  are 
in  their  place  of  worship,  and  wish  to  be  converted,  to  rise  up, 
and  likewise  bid  all  the  backsliders  to  do  the  same  ;  now,  what 
as  this  for,  but  to  convert  the  first  in  a  trice,  and  to  reclaim  the 


29 

latter  in  an  equally  short  space  of  time,  and  that  without  the 
tedious  process  of  converting  them  one  at  a  time.  Indeed 
Mr.  Totten  is  become  such  an  adept  at  dispatch,  that  he  has 
hinted  his  intention  of  converting  the  people  by  hundreds  at  a 
time  on  the  bank,  and  then  without  more  ado,  lead  them, 
immediately  into  the  river  and  baptize  them.  But  he  thought 
the  cause  of  infant  sprinkling  was  gained,  when  one  of  the 
subjects  was  immersed  face  foremost :  "  See  there,"  said  he, 
triumphantly,  "  did  I  not  tell  you  so — did  I  not  say  there  might 
be  different  modes  of  baptism  !" 

But  what  did  all  that  prove  ?  did  the  immersion  of  a  person 
face  downward,  prove  that  a  person  maybe  dipped  by  sprinkling, 
or  overwhelmed  in  a  bason  of  water  ?  or  did  it  prove,  that 
because  a  Methodist  preacher  would  conform  to  any  thing,  or 
every  thing,  to  suit  the  caprice  of  men,  that  this  was  mcon- 
testible  evidence,  that  the  apostles  did  just  so  ?  It  is  unpardon- 
able in  you  and  your  brethren,  sir,  not  to  have  known  that 
believers  immersed  in  the  name  of  the  sacred  Trinity,  and  by 
authorized  persons,  are  considered  by  us  as  regularly  baptized; 
neither  is  it  a  matter  of  any  importance  (except  as  it  relates  to 
decency)  whether  it  is  done  face  forward  or  not,  for  immersion 
is  immersion :  But  if  you  wish  us  to  take  it  for  granted,  that 
because  persons  may  be  immersed  different  ways,  it  equally 
follows  that  they  may  be  immersed  by  sprinkling  ;  we  will,  in 
that  case,  take  the  liberty  of  dissenting  from  you. 

If  your  society  were  to  immerse  believers  in  water,  and  that 
uniformly  in  the  way  last  mentioned,  or  were  thev  to  vary  their 
mode  of  immersing  them  as  much  as  possible ;  in  that  case,  the 
controversy  would  cease  between  us  ;  and  if  we  were  to  object 
to  the  manner  of  doing  it,  it  would  not  be  by  proving  it  not  to 
be  baptism,  (for  that  would  be  impossible)  but  by  shewing,  that 
•one  wav  would  be  more  convenient  than  another.  Now,  sir* 
what  becomes  of  }T>ur  pretended  wit  and  indecent  laugh  ?  indeed 
vou  deserve  to  be  laughed  at  for  your  d  illness.  Would  any  one 
but  a  self-conhdent,  vain,  impudent,  and  ignorant  man,  ever 
have  thought  of  asserting  such  nonsense  as,  that  because  a 
person  may  be  dipped  in  different  ways,  therefore  dipping  and 
sprinkling  must  most  surely  be  the  same  thing  ? 

Your  remarks  on  Greek  prepositions  were  truly  ridiculous  ; 
for  vou  first  most  gravely  affirmed,  that  the  words  "  into"  and 
"  out  of"  as  found  in  our  translations  of  the  Bible,  were  wrong, 
and  that  where  thev  are  said  to  go  down  u  into  the  water"  and 
to  "  •  f  it"  should  to  it% 

and  u  come  up  from  it"     So,  then,  it  seem:,  that  I  fault 

with  the  present  translation,  and  it  v.  Bible  must 

E 


30 

undergo  an  alteration,  or  sprinkling  cannot  be  defended.  But 
whence,  sir,  did  you  obtain  your  information  ?  Are  you  a  critic 
in  the  original  tongues  ?  After  this  great  parade  about  mistraris- 
.  lotion  of  the  scriptures,  to  our  utter  astonishment,  we  hear  you 
say  c  you  knoxv  nothing-  about  Greek,  and  that  the  learned  gave 
\  ou  this  information.'  For  the  sake  of  your  reputation,  if  you 
have  no  fear  of  wresting  the  scriptures,  do  not  in  future  pretend 
to  mend  the  present  translation  of  the  Bible  ;  but  leave  it  to 
others,  on  whose  opinion  more  reliance  can  be  placed.  But  '  the 
learned  told  you  so  ;'  that  is,  in  plain  words,  the  learned  Mr. 

P.  E ,  the  same  author  from  whom  you  obtained  all  you 

advanced  at  the  water.  But  what  credit  is  due  to  that  gentleman  t 
Certainly,  if  he  could  unblushingly  misquote  Mr.  Booth,  his 
antagonist,  in  order  to  abuse  him  (which  will  appear  hereafter)  ; 
he  would  not  hesitate  to  serve  the  apostles  in  the  same  manner. 
— You  were  resolved  to  come  oif,  however,  as  well  as  the  case 
would  admit  of,  b)^  saying  you  would  4  leave  the  learned  to 
contend  about  words ;  but,  for  your  part,  it  was  not  words,  but 
the  substance  you  would  pursue.'  Pray,  sir,  why  did  you  not 
act  thus,  and  not  expose  your  ignorance,  by  such  an  unmeaning 
flourish  I  and  if  it  was  substance,  and  not  shadows,  you  were 
grasping  at,  how  came  you  to  bring  in  the  shadows  of  the  old 
lav/  to  illustrate  gospel  rites  ? — As  to  the  prepositions  above 
mentioned,  we  shall  notice  them  in  their  proper  place. 

But  you  say,  "there is  nothing  said  against  baptizing  infants." 
Is  there,  sir,  any  thing  for  it  ?  and  do  you  mean  to  tell  us,  that 
an}'  thing  and  every  thing  maybe  performed  as  acts  of  religious 
worship,  however  absurd,  provided  God  does  not  expressly 
forbid  them  ?  Look,  sir,  where  this  will  lead — to  what  lengths 
men  may  go — and  how  it  will  justify  the  greatest  atrocities.  It 
is  not  said  in  scripture,  that  the  pope  shall  not  be  called  Peters 
successor — that  the  priest's  shall  not  sprinkle  zvjth  holy  zvater — 
say  mass  for  the  dead — baptize  bells — make  use  of  salt  and  spittle 
in  baptism — cast  out  the  devil  by  exorcism — keep  saints  days — 
:  ray  by  counting  of  beads — mortify  the  body  by  whipping  or 
Ulceration — go  into  nunneries  or  convents  for  life :  all  which, 
and  many  more  things  equally  ridiculous,  have  been  performed 
under  the  name  of  religious  duties  ;  and  every  one  of  them  is 
equally  defensible,  on  the  principles  for  which  you  contend,  as 
infant  sprinkling  is  :  if  the  silence  of  scripture  justifies  the  one, 
it  does  the  other  also.  Or  do  you  supnose,  that  as  the  people 
are  the  fountain  of  power  in  civil  governments,  and  that  all 
powers  by  them  not  delegated  to  their  public  servants,  are 
retained  m  their  own  hands  ;  I  say,  do  you  imagine  God  is 
exercising  a  delegated  authority,  and  that  you  retain  power  to 
do  what  \s  not  expressly  prohibited  r 


In  that  address,  did  not  you  act  the  part  of  a  religious  juggler, 
and,  in  order  to  take  off  the  attention  of  the  people  from  the 
merits  of  your  argument,  in  a  most  indecent  manner  appeal  to 
the  prejudices  of  the  audience?  sometimes  rouse  the  sympathies 
of  mothers  for  "  dying  infants  :" — sometimes  excite  the  anger 
of  the  multitude  by  asking,  c  what  would  become  of  unbaptized 
heathen  ?'  and,  to  excite  part}'  zeal, '  what  would  become  of  the 
numerous  sects  of  religious  people,  who  do  not  practice  as  we 
do  V  and  whom,  you  affirmed,  on  our  principles  would  be  lost.  To 
crown  all,  your  crocodile  tears  are  called  up,  and  with  plaintive 
voice  you  exclaim,  "  Where  will  all  the  Quakers  go,  who  have 
not  received  baptism  in  any  shape ;  do  not  the  baptists  send  them 
to  hell?"  You,  sir,  ought  to  have  been  the  last  man  to  have 
named  that  society;  for  your  abuse  of  them  is  frequent  and 
illiberal  in  the  extreme.  I  could  furnish  indubitable  evidence, 
that  you  have  from  the  pulpit  declared  them  devoid  of  religion ; 
and  yet,  to  serve  your  purpose,  with  an  unblushing  effrontery, 
vou  dared  to  speak  of  them  thus.  Yes,  sir,  if  ever  consummate 
impudence  and  vanity  were  united  in  any  man,  it  is  certainly  in 
yourself;  and  it  does  not  appear  that  you  regard  the  choice  of 
weapon,  if  victory  may  be  obtained. 

You  likewise  affirmed,  that  we  resort  to  immersion  in  order 
to  obtain  popularity.  I  am  ready  to  suspect,  sir,  that  you  are 
unacquainted  with  the  meaning  of  the  term  popularity;  or,  how 
could  it  have  entered  into  your  head  to  advance  such  a  chai 
Does  not  that  which  is  popular  meet  with  the  countenance  of 
the  public  at  large,  please  the  great  majority  of  them,  and  gain 
favour  for  those  that  are  its  advocates  ?  and  do  not  the  persons 
who  take  opposite  ground  meet  with  a  contrary  treatment  ?  But 
on  whose  side  is  public  sentiment ;  is  it  with  the  Baptists,  or 
their  opponents  ?  Certainly,  sir,  you  cannot  be  ignorant  of  this, 
that  we  are  far  in  the  minority ;  nor  are  3011  ignorant  of  the 
torrents  of  abuse  poured  out  on  us  from  every  quarter,  espe- 
cially as  you  have  taken  no  inconsiderable,  nor  yet  unsuccessful 
part  yourself,  in  exciting  public  indignation  against  us.  Whence, 
then,  the  justice  of  the  charge  ?  Do  we  thus' practice  to  gain  the 
favour  of  the  public  ? 

I  now,  sir,  appeal  from  you  to  every  candid  and  honest  mac, 
whether  the  reverse  is  not  precisely  true,  and  whether  the  immer- 
sion of  believers  is  not  extremely  unpopular  ?  Do  not  our 
candidates,  on  their  making  a  profession,  frequently  endure  the 
cruel  scoffs,  and  jeers,  perhaps  of  hundreds  ?  Do  they  net, 
many  times,  endure  the  wintry  stream,  and  not  only  bear  an 
uncomfortable  sensation  from  chilling  waters,  but  also  the 
despicable  names  of  "fanatics"  and  "  enthusiasts"  on  this  very 
account,  while  the  most  illiberal  constructions  are  put  on  theii 


conduct  ?  Mirny,  very  many  of  our  members  have  been  most 
cruelly  persecuted  on  this  very  account.  The  wife  has  been 
beaten  by  the  husband,  and  even  turned  out  of  doors  from  her 
little  peeping  children ;  children  have  likewise  been  driven  from 
the  houses  oi  their  parents,  and  not  suffered  to  return  ;  appren- 
tices have  had  their  usual  liberties  abridged  on  the  same  account, 
and  otherwise  treated  very  roughly;  and  my  ministering  brethren 
have  had  to  administer  this  ordinance  amid  threats  of  personal 
assault,  yea,  and  loss  of  life.  The  people  have  been  warned 
against  us  from  the  pulpit,  as  enemies  to  God  and  disturbers  of 
families  ; — we  have  been  pointed  at  in  the  streets  with  the  finger 
of  scorn,  and  made  the  subjects  of  unfriendly  conversation 
in  private  circles  ; — the  weapons  of  slander  and  detraction  are 
used  against  us,  and  the  most  glaring  falsehoods  propagated, 
(in  doing  which,  you,  sir,  have  been  in  the  foremost  ranks)  to 
bring  us  into  contempt.  And  after  all  this,  every  tittle  oi  which 
can  be  proved  with  ease,  we  hear  this  gentleman  affirm,  we  do 
it  in  order  to  be  popular.  Were  that  our  design,  we  should 
take  a  quite  different  course,  we  should  not  put  the  feelings  to 
pain,  nor  expose  the  candidate  to  view,  but  do  it  in  a  private 
house  ;  we  should  go  with  the  multitude,  and  approve  what 
they  practice. 

On  the  contrary  we  are  certain,  that  this  ordinance  requires 
too  great  a  sacrifice  of  feeling  ever  to  be  received  by  the  great 
ones  of  the  earth,  by  whose  opinion  public  sentiment  is  directed ; 
and  that  as  the  religion  of  Jesus  was  designed  to  mortify  the 
pride  of  man,  and  to  counteract  the  false  notions  of  propriety 
and  honour  inherent  in  our  fallen  nature  and  propagated  in 
society,  we  do  not  hesitate  to  say,  it  was  for  this,  among  other 
important  reasons,  that  the  great  Head  of  the  church  directed 
it  thus  to  be  administered.  So  far  from  this  ordinance  being 
popular,  it  is  the  very  thing  to  which  people  object,  and  very 
many  declare  without  disguise,  that  were  it  not  for  the  shame 
attendant  on  the  performance,  they  would  submit  to  the  institu- 
tion. And  my  opinion  certainly  is,  that  this,  and  this  principally, 
is  the  foundation  of  that  violent  opposition  the  ordinance  experi- 
ences.—  Now,  sir,  I  call  on  you  to  answer  as  in  the  presence  of 
the  Searcher  of  hearts,  whether  this  sentiment  is  not  strictly 
true. — But,  sir,  you  appear  intent  only  on  augmenting  numbers, 
and  stick  at  nothing  to  proselyte  men  and  women.  You  will 
court,  fawn,  flatter,  intimidate,  receive  them  with  or  without 
baptism,  and  never  question  them  as  to  religious  sentiment. 

I  shall  close  my  remarks  on  your  loose  observations,  (for  loose 

they  were  indeed)  by  noticing  your  most  horrid  charge  of 

ignorance  on  the  apostles.     You  did,  sir,  repeat  the  expression 

.-,  "  the  ignorant  apostles  !"    What,  sir,  could  have  induced 


33 

you  thus  to  speak  ?  Were  you  not  afraid  of  depreciating  the 
characters  of  the  apostles,  and  do  you  not  see  that  such  remarks 
go  far  to  weaken  the  confidence  of  men  in  them,  and  to  bring 
their  writings  into  utter  contempt  ?  What  could  the  numerous 
infidels  of  the  age  have  desired  more  than  to  hear  a  professed 
minister  of  Christ  call  in  question  the  knowledge  of  the  apostles, 
and  intimate  doubts  of  their  inspiration  ?  for  surely,  if  public 
characters  doubt,  what  may  we  not  expect  from  those  who 
possess  not  their  information  ? 

But  it  seems,  such  is  the  estimation  in  which  infant  sprinkling 
is  held,  that  its  advocates  rather  than  part  with  it,  will  question 
the  verity  of  God's  word.  Pray,  sir,  if  you  are  at  liberty  to  dis- 
pense with  a  part  o/the  apostolic  writings,  have  you  not  an  equal 
right  to  dipense  with  the  whole  ?  and  if  you  teach  the  people  to  call 
in  question  their  writings  in  one  instance,  will  they  not  proceed 
farther,  and  eventually  deny  them  altogether  ?  for  there  is  no 
such  thing  as  drawing  the  line,  and  in  that  case  knowing 
where  to  stop.  It  is  evident,  if  they  mistook  in  some  points, 
they  might  also  in  others,  and  who  may  venture  to  say  where 
they  have  not  been  mistaken,  and  whether  they  have  not  been 
imposed  upon  first  and  last  ?  Is  infant  sprinkling  of  such  magni- 
tude, that  it  is  better  to  part  with  our  Bibles  than  with  it  ? 
Surely  such  assertions  do  not  accord  with  what  gentlemen  say, 
when  they  term  baptism  a  mere  "  non-essential."  Go  on,  sir,  in 
this  business  as  you  have  begun,  and  engage  a  few  more  of  your 
brethren  equally  zealous  with  yourself,  and  let  it  be  your  work 
to  tell  the  people  the  apostles  are  not  to  be  credited,  at  least,  in 
some  things  ;  and  let  me  tell  you,  sir,  you  will  effectually 
supercede  the  necessity  of  a  third  part  of  the  Age  of  Reason. 
Infidels  may  then  cease  their  libels  on  the  sacred  writers,  for 
Methodists  and  Quakers  have  effectually  relieved  them  from  the 
task,  and  raised  an  insurrection  in  the  very  camp  of  Israel ;  and 
our  young  rakes  wiii  make  merry  and  send  gifts  one  to  another, 
rejoicing  that  the  apostles  are  proved  to  be  a  band  of  blockheads, 
and  that  even  by  their  pretended  admirers. 

You  will  hope  to  be  relieved  by  saying,  that  they  were 
deficient  in  knowledge  concerning  the  nature  of  Christ's  king- 
dom, and  his  design  in  coming  into  the  world  ;  and  why  not, 
therefore,  on  the  subject  of  baptism  ?  But  at  what  time  was 
this  ?  was  it  not  while  they  were  with  the  Redeemer,  when  they 
thus  disputed  ;  or  immediately  after  his  death,  when  he  called 
them  fools  and  slow  of  heart  to  believe,  and  before  they  received 
the  baptism  of  the  Spirit,  which  was  given  to  fit  them  for  their 
ministry  ?  But  in  the  charge  you  exhibited  against  them,  no 
distinction  was  made  as  to  time.  On  the  contrary,  the  audience 
were  left  to  apply  it  to  any  time  whatever,  even  to  their  after 


34- 

writings  5  and  the  purport  of  it  was,  that  neither  their  example 
or  commands  were  to  be  attended  to,  inasmuch  as  they  them- 
selves had  been,  and  might  again  be  mistaken,  as  to  God's 
will. 

But  your  charge  of  "  ignorance"  against  them  cannot  avail 
in  this  dispute,  because  at  the  time  alluded  to,  they  acted  not 
according  to  their  own  views,  but  under  the  immediate  orders 
of  the  Saviour  ;  so  neither  will  it  do  to  apply  it  to  after  times, 
without  all  the  consequences  resulting  therefrom  already  men- 
tioned ;  the  truth  of  which  thus  appears.  After  Christ's  resurrec- 
tion, mention  is  made  of  men  and  women  "  being  baptized,"  and 
of  no  others! — of  "  coming  up  out  of  the  water" — of  requiring 
u  faith  of  the  eunuch  and  jailer,"  and  opening  "  Lydia's  heart." 
Now  all  this  was  done  after  they  had  received  the  baptism  of  the 
Holy  Ghost,  and  were  endowed  with  power  from  on  high  ;  and 
it  is  easily  seen,  that  to  charge  mistake  or  ignorance  on  them 
at  this  period,  is,  in  effect,  to  deny  the  inspiration  of  all  their 
writings,  and  to  invalidate  ah  the  epistles.  What  a  reflection 
was  this  on  infant  aspersion !  It  was  as  much  as  saying, c  I  know, 
indeed,  that  the  apostles  did  practice  as  the  Baptists  now  do, 
and  it  is  so  plain,  that  it  would  be  folly  in  me  to  deny  it ;  but 
then  the  apostles  were  "  ignorant"  and  did  not  know  what  they 
were  about ;  and,  for  my  part,  rather  than  trust  them  in  this 
dispute,  I  will  go  to  Moses,  Ezekiel,  and  Joel  the  prophet,  to 
enquire  about  the  mode  and  subjects  of  baptism.' 

Reconsider,  sir,  this  business,  and  abandon  a  system  that 
requires  such  sacrifices  in  its  support,  and,  if  possible,  make  an 
adequate  atonement  to  the  injured  cause  of  religion,  by  letting 
the  world  know  that  you  were  too  hasty  in  your  remarks,  and 
that  you  did  not  at  that  time  perceive  you  were  tearing  up  the 
very  foundations  of  all  revealed  religion :  and  may  God  preserve 
you  in  future  from  such  furious  zeal  and  outrageous  attacks  on 
the  great  bulwark  of  our  holy  religion!  I  mean  the  inspiration 
of  the  scriptures. 

My  attention  shall  now  be  directed  to  what  you  call  proof, 
that  sprinkling  was  the  mode,  and  infants  were  the  subjects  of 
baptism  in  the  first  days  of  the  church.  But  here  I  must  be 
excused  from  taking  any  notice  of  you  at  all  by  name,  and  be 
permitted  to  confine  my  strictures  to  Mr.  Edwards'  performance, 
from  which  you  derived  every  idea  that  was  of  any  weight.  It 
would  not  do  for  me  to  answer  Mr.  E.  as  you  quoted  him  ;  for 
I  know  that  he  has  suffered  so  much  from  the  very  imperfect 
representation  you  gave  of  his  arguments,  that  I  am  resolved 
to  notice  him  especiallv  ;  and  as  you  advanced  nothing  which 
he  did  not,  it  is  my  place  to  make  him  a  suitable  reply;  and 
you  through  him. 


CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM,  &c. 

V-' 

IN  THREE  PARTS. 


PART  II.  "^ 

hi  Reply  to  the  late  Work  of  Mr.  Peter  Edwards. 


Observations  on  his  Introduction — shewing  that  Mr.  Edwards  has  falsely  stated 
the  controversy — and  that,  by  leading  the  reader  away  from  the  matter  in 
dispute,  he  attempts  to  puzzle  him,  and  then  by  false  conclusions  to  gain 
his  point. 


M 


.R,  EDWARDS  having  formed  a  few  Theses  ;  I 
will  examine  them. 

TRESIS  I. 

Mr.  Edwards  says  that,  c  in  disputes,  the  only  thing  to  be 
aimed  at  by  the  parties  is  the  attainment  of  truth.'  Had  Mr.  E. 
governed  himself  by  this  maxim,  all  would  have  been  well : 
but  judge,  reader,  :f  he  be  sincere.  I  shall  make  it  appear  to 
vou,  that  he  has  been  guilty  of  imputing  falsehoods  to  the 
Baptists,  and  that  he  has  made  untrue  quotations  from  Mr. 
Booth.  The  maxim,  however,  is  a  good  one,  and  it  will  be  v^ell 
if  our  desire  be  sincerely  to  seek  after  truth — that,  laying  aside 
prejudice  and  veneration  for  long  standing  practices,  we  be 
determined  to  embrace  it  as  soon  as  discovered.  Mr.  E.  thinks, 
that  wh ere  there  is  an  agreement  on  subjects,  it  is  in  vain  to 
dwell  on  them  in  controversy.  True  :  but  then  there  must  be  a 
real  agreement.  Mr.  Wesley  will  admit,  that  there  are  such 
truths  as  election,  justification,  a  iacation  ;  but  then  it  is 

in  mime  only,  and  not  in  reality,  or  not  in  the  scripture  sense  : 
but  will  it  be  inferred  from  hence,  that  the  friends  of  sovereign 
e  must  not  oppose  his  views  \    So  Mr.  E.  says, '  there  is  an 
ment  between  the  Baptists  and  himself  on  the  subject  of 
'It''  baptism :'  but  this  we  deny,  as  will  appear  in  the  sequel. 
We,  however,  understai  u  is  by  taking  for  granted  many 

:  to  have  been  pi  >ved,  tnat  1  >es  to  gain 

his  point.     We  do  net  object  to  the  opinion,  that  i  in  seeking 
truth,  we  ought  fc  .-.  Inch  will  bring  us  sconce: 

to  it.'     Dc       h'.    conform  to  tl  nent,  when  he  goes  to 

heathen  poets  to  find  out  the  mo:le  of  baptism,  rather  than  to 


36 

New  Testament  examples  ? — and  when,  to  find  out  the  materials 
for  a  gospel  church,  he  takes  the  Jewish  commonwealth  ior  his 
model ;  and,  instead  of  enquiring  at  the  mouth  of  Christ  and 
the  apostles  for  subjects  of  baptism,  he  takes  you  to  Closes  ? 

THESIS    II. 

This  author  proceeds  in  his  way,  to  shew  wherein'  consists 
the  difference  of  opinion  between  the  Poedobaptists  and  us.  His 
statement  is,  that  Baptists  consider  those  only  to  be  subjects  of 
baptism  who  possess  faith  in  Christ.  He  observes  v... 
baptists  agree  with  us  in  this,  uthat  believers  are  proper  subjects; 
but  deny  that  such  only  are  proper  subjects."  We  do  not  thank 
him  for  the  acknowledgement,that  believing  adults  were  bapt  i 
for  the  names  "  men  and  women,"  (not  children,)  so  frequently 
occur  in  the  New  Testament,  that  he  could  not  deny  the  position  : 
but  then  we  suspect,  that  he  would  have  been  better  please d 
the  sex  and  age  of  candidates  never  have  been  mentioned  ;  the 
silence  of  scripture  here  would  have  strengthened  him  much.  Or 
had  the  name  of  infant,  or  children  of  believers,  once  occurred 
with  relation  to  baptism  ;  then,  to  be  sure,  we  should  haw;  been 
completely  routed. — But  is  he  sincere,  when  he  speaks  of  adult 
baptism,  (a  name,  by  the  by,  which  the  word  of  God  k 
nothing  about)  ;  for,  all  he  acknowledges  is,  that  adults  have 
been  baptized.  Surely  he  must  perceive,  that  if  the  unscriptural 
practice  prevailed,  it  would  go  to  banish  the  baptism  of  adults 
from  the  world.  It  would  also  follow,  that  infant  baptism,  of 
which  the  New  Testament  says  not  one  word,  nor  furnishes  one 
example,  would  supercede  the  baptism  of  believers,  male  and 
female,  of  which  instances  are  abundant.  But  this  acknow- 
ledgment is  only  an  artifice,  to  take  from  us  our  trhjd  armour, 
which  will  presently  appear ;  and  likewise,  under  a  shew  of 
charity  toward  the  Baptists,  to  cast  an  odium  on  them  for  the 
supposed  want  of  it,  and  thus  to  gain  to  himself  credit  with  the 
weak  mind. 

T\Ve  are  willing  to  admit  the  statement  of  our  sentiment  given 
in  this  thesis,  that  we  "  consider  those  persons  as  meet  subjects 
of  baptism,  who  are  supposed  to  possess  faith  in  Christ,  and 
those  only."  Now,  then,  our  opponents  are  to  take  the  i 
and  what  is  that  ?  Why,  that  unbelievers  also  are  subject*  ;   . 
hes^vs,  Poedobaptists  deny  that  believers  only  are  prope.  - 
— Are  our  adversaries  prepared  to  enter  the  lists  upon 

ruses   as  these?      If  they  are,    they  have  undertaken  an 
indeed,   and  one  that  will  overwhelm   them  in 
confusion.     Reader,  do  not  forget  this  statement  given 
£.;  for  it  will  not  be  long  before  you  will  find  he  i 
ground,  knowing  by  experi  -  nc  e  how  untenable  it  is.    Recollect, 


37 

he  says,  Pcedobaptists  deny — deny  what  ?  Why,  that  believers 
only  are  subjects. ;  and  if  so,  then  of  consequence  unbelievers,  or 
persons  having  no  faith,  are  subjects,  or  at  least  if  not  all,  some 
of  them  are.  Mr.  E.  makes  a  difference  between  the  children 
of  believers,  and  of  others  who  are  not  believers  ;  but  this  seems 
strange,  as  he  elsewhere  calls  infant  baptism  a  "  mean  of  grace." 
Now,  if  it  be  so,  does  this  agree  with  the  great  noise  Pcedo- 
baptists make  about  charity,  that  the  means  of  grace  should 
denied  to  the  infants  of  unbelievers  *  ?  Why,  one  would  be 
think  they  held  that  unpopular,  and  unscriptural  doctrine,  that 
some  dying  in  infancy  are  lost.  It  is  a  pity  that  Mr.  E.  did  not 
furnish  us  with  some  of  the  arguments  which  so  mightily  con- 
vinced his  "  ignorant"  Baptist  friends  of  whom  he  speaks,  and 
also  told  us  their  names  (for  he  is  not  very  modest  about  using 
names,  as  appears  from  his  abuse  of  Mr.  Booth)  and  thereby 
let  us  have  the  pleasure  at  least,  with  them,  of  marvelling  at 
his  uncommon  sagacity.  The  Baptists  must  be  ignorant  to  be 
sure,  and  if  there  were  no  other  proof  of  it,  their  rejection  of 
Mr.  E.'s  premises  and  conclusions  must,  no  doubt,  substantiate 
the  charge.  But  it  is  a  question  with  me,  whether  they  marvelled 
most  at  his  uncommon  impudence,  or  his  sophistry. 

THESIS    III. 

In  this  thesis,  he  goes  on  to  say,  that  c  it  appears  from  his 
former  reasonings,  that  both  were  agreed  about  adult  baptism :' 
— Hold,  stop,  stop,  sir,  not  so  fast! !  You  said  believers'  baptism 
before ;  now  you  have  changed  the  word  believer  for  adult. 
This  will  not  do,  sir,  we  hold  you  to  your  first  statement,  we 
do  not  agree  to  the  last.  Did  I  not  tell  you,  reader,  that  the 
gentleman  would  soon  change  his  ground  !  But  you  will  say, 
why  so  tenacious  of  a  word  ;  must  not  a  believer  necessarily  be 
an  adult  ?  We  answer,  no  ;  for  persons  may  believe  in  Christ 
ere  they  arrive  at  mature  age.  This  will  give  an  entire  new 
turn  to  the  controversy  ;  for  this  statement  would  make  the 
Baptists  affirm,  that  men  and  women  were  baptized  because 
they  were  adults,  and  that  infants  were  not  to  be  baptized 
merely  on  account  of  their  infancy  :  but  the  truth  of  the  matter 
is,  that  the  Baptists  affirm  believers,  and  they  only,  whether 
they  are  men  or  -women,  adults  or  those  under  age,  are  subjects  of 
baptism.     And  it  is  plain,  when  the  scripture  speaks  of  subjects 

*  Some  few  years  since,  the  deacon  of  a  Pcedobaptist  church  was  reproving 
his  daughter  for  omitting  to  have  her  infant  baptized.  She  answered,  that, 
according  to  his  own  principles,  only  the  infants  of  believers  were  subjects  of 
the  ordinance  ;  and  alleged,  that  she  was  no  believer.  "True,"  said  the  father, 
**  but  /  am  a  believer,  if  you  are  not,  and  that  will  answer  for  my  grandchild." 
The  woman  replied  :  "  it  is  very  strange,  father,  that  the  grace  should  pass 
from  you  through  me  to  my  child,  and  not  a  grain  of  it  stick  by  the  way  1" 

F 


of  baptism,  it  says  nothing  about  age  ;  but  mentions  only 
character.  Therefore  all  we  require  of  our  opponents  is,  that 
if  they  will  bring  infants  to  baptism,  they  prove  them  to  be 
believers  ;  and  if  they  will  not  undertake  to  do  this,  and  yet  will 
have  them  baptized,  they  are  plainly  reduced  to  the  necessity 
of  admitting,  that  persons  without  faith  may  be  baptized  j  or, 
which  is  the  same  thing,  that  faith  in  Christ  is  not  a  necessary 
qualification  for  baptism.  The  word  "  infant'''  baptism,  and 
the  word  "  adult"  baptism,  are  inventions  of  our  opponents  ; 
words  never  used  in  scripture,  but  invented  by  themselves  in 
order  to  confound  readers  in  the  investigation  of  this  controversy. 
We  therefore  say,  we  have  no  objection  to  the  baptizing  of 
infants,  if  they,  or  their  parents,  or  their  ministers,  can  prove 
they  have  the  prerequisites  insisted  on  in  the  scriptures. 

Mr.  E.  thinking  he  had  completely  duped  the  "  ignorant" 
Baptists  (as  he  represents  them  to  be)  by  his  sophistry,  proceeds 
thus  :  "  Now  seeing  they  are  so  far  of  one  mind," — Not  so,  sir, 
v.  v1  are  as  wide  apart  as  the  poles,  we  do  not  admit  this  as  the  state 
of  the  controversy  ;  and  still  insist,  the  only  dispute  really  is, 
whether  persons  with,  or  without  faith  are  to  be  baptized  ;  or 
whether  one  is  to  receive  it  as  well  as  the  other.  The  simple 
question  to  be  decided,  he  says,  is,  "  Are  infants  fit  subjects  for 
baptism  ?*'  No,  sir,  the  question  is,  whether  persons  (no  matter 
what  their  time  of  life)  void  of  faith  and  repentance,  are  to  be 
baptized.  Now  on  this,  as  you  say,  the  whole  controversy 
turns,  and  we  once  more  declare,  we  have  no  objections  to  the 
baptizing  of  infants,  if  they  are  in  possession  of  faith  and 
repentance. 

THESIS  IV. 

In  this  thesis  Mr.  E.  might  rather  have  said,  that  the  simple 
question  is  not  as  he  stated,  but  quite  the  reverse.  The  passages 
advanced  to  prove  believers'  baptism  (not  of  adults  as  such) 
prove  every  tiling  on  the  side  of  the  Baptists,  and  leave  their 
opponents  in  confusion  and  dismay.  Now,  to  overwhelm  us 
a  mpletely,  he  proposes  a  question  deemed  by  him  unanswerable 
without  an  abandonment  of  our  cause  ;  and,  indeed,  had  we 
admitted  his  statement  of  the  controversy,  it  would  have  been 
formidable  :  but,  as  we  wholly  reject  it,  he  is  only  beating  the 
air,  and  exposing  the  weakness  of  his  cause.  Now  for  his 
illustrative  question :  "  Is,'7  says  Mr.  E.  with  an  air  of  triumph, 
addressing  himself  to  his  Baptist  opponents,  "  is  an  infant  a  fit 
subject  of  baptism  r"  Now  mark  his  policy:  had  he  asked,  is 
a  believer  0itly9  which  indeed  is  the  proper  question,  and  not 
an  unbeliever,  no  matter  as  to  time  of  life,  is  he  only  a  subject 
of  baptism?  he  knew  the  Baptist's  answer  would  have  been 
conclusive.    But  no;  he  makes  the  enquiry  to  relate  to  an  infant. 


S9 

in  order  to  turn  our  thoughts  from  the  true  question.  The 
queries  of  Mr.  E.  should  stand  thus  : 

Q.  Are  infants,  as  such,  subjects  of  baptism  ? 

A.  No :  not  because  they  are  infants,  but  as  they  possess 
not  the  qualifications  indispensible  to  baptism,  which  are  faith 
and  repentance. 

Q.  But  how  do  you  prove  they  are  not  subjects  ? 

A.  First,  there  are  no  examples  of  infant  baptism  in  scrip- 
ture ;  secondly,  the  gospel  is  not  addressed  to  infants  ;  thirdly, 
it  is  said,  with  respect  to  qualification,  "  Repent  and  be  bap- 
tized ; — If  thou  believest  thou  mayest." 

Q.  I  say,  your  answer  is  not  in  point. 

A.  I  say,  it  is. 

Q.  You  answer  me  by  declaring  a  penitent  adult  is  a  subject 
of  baptism:  but  this  is  not  in  point ;  for  my  question  concerned 
infants  only. 

A.  In  my  answer,  I  said  nothing  about  adults,  but  only  about 
believers,  without  respect  to  age  ;  and  the  distinction  between 
infant  baptism  and  adult  baptism,  is  a  human  invention.  My 
answer  respects  infants  as  far  as  they  have,  or  have  not  faith. 
It  lies  on  you  to  prove  they  have,  and  then  my  answer  will  be 
in  the  affirmative.  But,  as  I  do  not  believe  they  have,  for 
reasons  I  shall  hereafter  assign,  I  do  not  think  they  are  subjects 
of  baptism;  and  as  the  true  question  is  not,  whether  an  infant 
or  an  adult,  but  whether  a  believer,  or  unbeliever,  is  a  subject ; 
therefore  the  texts  you  referred  to  apply  to  infants,  they  not 
having  faith.  Your  only  alternative  is  to  prove,  that  not  having 
faith  is  no  bar  to  baptism,  and  then  you  establish  the  right  of 
unbelievers  to  do  it  of  every  age. 

But  now  let  us  see  how  ridiculous  Mr.  E.  would  appear  by 
such  a  question,  and  how  triumphant  a  Baptist  in  the  answer; 
provided  he  had  stated  the  question  truly,  which  would  have 
been  by  substituting  the  words,  "  believer  and  penitent,"  in  the 
place  of  infant.    Example  : 

Q.   Is  a  believer,  or  penitent  only,  the  subject  of  baptism? 

A.  Yes,  such  only. 

G).  How  do  vou  prove  it  ? 

A.   By  such  texts  as  above  quoted. 

Q.  But  this  is  not  in  point  as  to  infants. 

A.  Yes,  it  is,  for  they  have  not  faith  and  repentance,  nor  are 
they  capable  of  either. 

Or,  again  : 

Q.  Is  an  infant,  whom  Posdobaptists  acknowledge  not  to  be 
capable  of  faith,  a  subject  of  baptism  r 

A,  No. 

.Q.  Wherefore? 


40 

A.  Because  the  scripture  says,  "  Repent  and  be  baptized  ;" 
— a  Believe  and  thou  mayest." 

Q.  But  your  answer  is  not  in  point,  you  only  speak  of  adults, 
who  alone  are  capable  of  faith  and  repentance. 

A.  I  have  not  mentioned  adults,  nor  any  age  or  sex,  but 
characters.  Besides,  adults  are  not  all  subjects ;  nor  yet  arc 
any  of  them  so,  because  they  are  adults :  but  you  answer  the 
question  by  owning  they  have  not  the  qualifications.  Besides, 
the  requiring  of  these  proves  their  necessity,  unless  there  is  some 
restricting  clause  in  their  favour :  but  where  will  you  find  it  ? 

In  the  latter  part  of  this  extraordinary  paragraph,  we  discern 
the  reasons  which  Mr.  E.  had  for  distinguishing  baptism  into 
adult,  and  infant.  It  was  by  this  expedient  to  deprive  the 
Baptists  of  the  innumerable  passages  of  scripture,  with  which 
they  would  overwhelm  him.  To  avoid  the  dilemma,  he  dexte- 
rously dissembles,  and  covers  the  true  ground  of  controversy — 
shifts,  and  ranges  adults  and  infants  in  opposition — supposes  two 
distinct  baptisms,  one  as  the  right  of  believing-  adults  only,  the 
other  as  belonging  to  infants  of  believers.  But  what  seems  more 
singular  still,  is,  that  after  he  had  adopted  the  distinction  in 
order  to  prepare  the  mind  of  his  opponent  to  receive  and  act 
upon  it,  he  pretends  that  this  mode  of  stating  the  question  was 
not  only  proper  in  itself,  but  that  it  was  the  precise  thing  the 
Baptists  had  been  "  contending'*''  for,  so  many  years  ;  and  that 
he  being  so  much  more  charitable  than  all  his  Pcedobaptist 
brethren  that  had  gone  before  him,  would,  in  his  extreme  good 
nature,  grant  them  all  they  desired.  Having  as  he  thought  by 
assuming  the  garb  of  liberality,  in  granting  the  baptism  of 
believers  under  the  name  of  believing  adults,  secured  the  consent 
of  the  Baptists  to  his  statement  of  the  controversy :  now  he 
throws  ofF  the  mask,  and  proceeds  to  make  use  of  the  supposed 
concession  to  our  great  disadvantage.  We  discover  that  his 
design  was  to  deprive  us  by  stratagem  of  every  text  where 
baptism  is  mentioned ;  and  then,  by  making  the  Jewish  and 
gospel  church  the  same,  prove  the  church  membership  of  infants, 
and  then  infer  their  baptism. 

Now,  to  discover  how  much  depends  on  the  right  statement 
of  the  controversy,  I  shall  shew,  that  in  his  thesis,  he  reduces 
the  scriptures  wholly  to  silence  in  the  business  ;  and  then  leaves 
us  to  prove  what  is  a  positive  ordinance,  only  by  conjecture  and 
inference. ;  and  moreover,  how  every  passage  of  scripture,  on 
a  proper  statement  of  the  controversy,  bears  entirely  against 
him. 

EXAMPLE    I. 

P.  I  understand  you  do  not  admit  of  the  baptizing  of  infants. 

B.  I  do  not. 


41 

P.  Why  ?         B.  Because  the  scriptures  condemn  it. 

P.  What  scriptures  do  so  ? 

B.  You  know  the  circumstances  of  those  that  came  to  John, 
Matth.  iii.  5. — the  Samaritans,  Acts  viii.  12. — the  three  thou- 
sand, Acts  ii.  41. — the  jailor,  Acts  xvi.  33. — Lydia,  Acts  xvi. 
14. — Paul,  Acts  ix.  18. — the  eunuch,  Acts  x.  47. — you  remem- 
ber besides,  the  commission  to  teach  and  baptize,  Matth.  xxviii. 
1 9. ;  and  the  refusal  of  baptism  to  some  for  want  of  the  qualifi- 
cations, Matth.  iii.  1. 

P.  These  are  nothing  to  the  point,  I  asked  only  about  infants. 

B.  But  infants  do  not  believe  or  repent. 

P.  That  is  true,  but  you  remember  the  concession  you 
made,  that  you  admitted  my  statement  of  the  controversy,  and 
thereby  admitted  that  all  the  scriptures  you  mentioned  only 
respected  adults,  and  you  were  not  afterward  therefore  to 
mention  them,  you  were  to  find  some  in  which  infants  were 
prohibited  by  name,  or  what  was  equal  to  it. 

B.  You,  sir,  took  the  advantage  of  me ;  you  blinded  me  by 
a  seeming  charity  ;  I  see  you  are  obliged  to  deal  deceitfully 
with  God's  word ;  yea,  nothing  will  serve  your  cause  but 
silencing  the  scripture. 

EXAMPLE    II. 

P.  So,  sir,  you  do  not  believe  in  the  baptism  of  infants. 

B.  I  do  not. 

P.  How  do  you  prove  your  sentiment  from  scripture  ? 

B.  By  the  above  citations. 

P.  But  they  say  nothing  about  infants,  whether  they  shall  or 
shall  not  be  baptized. 

B.  They  do. 

P.  How? 

B.  They  demand  faith  and  repentance,  and  deny  baptism  to 
them  that  have  it  not,  and  you  have  acknowledged  they  have 
neither,  therefore  the  argument  is  at  an  end. 

P.  I  admit  that  on  your  principles  they  are  excluded,  but 
then  my  statement  is  thus  :  that  there  are  two  baptisms,  infant, 
and  adult,  and  that  all  those  texts  apply  to  adults  only,  and  we 
do  not  deny  that  they  must  be  believers  and  penitents ;  but  this 
does  not  apply  to  infants,  and  if  my  statement  is  just,  you  must 
find  new  arguments  or  else  lose  your  cause. 

B.  But  I  deny  your  distinction. 

P.  Why  deny  it? 

B.  Because  it  is  not  in  the  New  Testament,  neither  can  you 
find  it  there  ;  and  I  now  demand  of  you  one  single  text  to 
warrant  such  distinctions. 

P.  I  do  not  pretend  to  prove  it  from  any  scripture  text,  but 
the  distinction  is  logical  enough. 


42 

B.  And  were  you  not  afraid  to  sport  with  the  Bible  thus  ? 
Yes,  it  wus  logic  with  a  witness,  and  by  such  miserable  shifts  as 
these,  you  endeavour  to  support  a  practice  not  countenanced  by 
God's  word,  and  thus  to  impose  on  the  weak. 

P.  But  what  statement  do  you  give  ? 

B.  The  baptism  of  believers,  without  respect  to  sex  or  age  ; 
and  all  such  as  are  not  believers  excluded. 

P.  If  your  statement  is  just,  the  dispute  is  at  an  end. 

thesis  v. 

The  only  things  to  be  noticed  in  this  thesis,  are  a  few  assertions. 

1.  That  "  both  parties  agree  about  adult  baptism."  This  we 
deny  as  above,  and  declare  we  know  nothing  about  any  baptism 
of  that  name. 

2.  That  "  when  a  Baptist  has  proved  adult  baptism,  he  has 
proved  nothing  against  a  Pcedobaptist."  This  we  also  deny, 
because  we  never  did  pretend  to  prove  any  baptism  but  believers; 
and  because,  in  doing  this,  we  prove  infants  are  excluded,  thev 
not  having  faith. 

3.  That  the  u  only  question  to  be  decided  between  us  is,  Are 
infants  fit  subjects  for  baptism  or  not."  We  say  this  is  not  the 
question,  but  whether  believers  only  are  such,  or  if  unbelievers, 
or  persons  wanting  faith  may  be  admitted  also  ;  and,  as  far  as 
infants  are  concerned  in  the  question  concerning  faith,  so  far, 
and  only  so  far,  have  we  to  do  with  them. 

4.  He  asserts,  that  those  passages  that  prove  "  adult  baptism 
will  not  disprove  that  of  infants."  True,  because  there  are  no 
such  passages  that  speak  of  adult  baptism,  but  there  are  such  as 
prove  believers'*  baptism  ;  and  these  will  disprove  the  right  of 
infants  fairly. 

5.  That  "  the  arguments  for  and  against,"  that  is,  not  of  adults 
and  infants,  but  of  believers  or  unbelievers'  baptism,  "  being 
compared,"  as  to  their  number  and  weight ;  "  that  side  is  the  true 
one,  on  which  they  preponderate."  So  that  we  fairly  conclude,  as 
saith  this  thesis,  that  if  the  arguments  for  believers'  baptism  are 
stronger  and  more  numerous  than  those  on  the  side  of  unbe- 
lievers, or  of  such  as  are  void  of  faith  and  repentance,  that 
believers'  baptism  must  needs  be  true,  and  the  other  false  :  and 
we  shall,  as  advised  by  him,  set  them  in  opposite  columns,  by 
which  process,  we  shall  see  whether  Baptists  or  Posdobaptists 
have  the  truth  on  their  side. 

Reader,  I  consider  the  whole  of  the  performance  of  Mr. 
Edwards  a  master-piece  of  sophistry,  which  consists  in  leading 
off  the  enquirer  from  the  real  controversy  to  an  imaginary  one ; 
in  proposing  the  arguments  of  his  antagonist  unfairlv,  while  he 
seems  to  do  him  justice  ;  he  affects  candour ,  while  at  the  same 


43 

time,  with  an  air  of  importance,  of  solemnity,  of  triumph,  he 
proposes  arguments  otherwise  very  zueak,  so  that  they  appear 
to  have  solidity,  and  a  bearing  on  the  subject,  when  they  really 
have  none  whatever.  You  have  already  had  a  specimen  of  this 
in  his  theses,  which  are  indeed  in  miniature  his  whole  book,  so 
that  vou  will  not  be  surprised  if  we  have  frequent  occasion  to 
expose  his  policy,  and  by  shewing  where  he  has  taken  an  undue 
advantage,  hinder  him  from  reaping  the  profit  he  intended. 

The  first  thing  he  does,  is  to  introduce  the  question  concerning 
female  communion.  This  must  be  surprising  at  first  sight,  when 
the  man  is  professedly  on  the  subject  of  baptism  j  but  then,  our 
surprise  vanishes  when  we  see  he  is  laying  a  snare  for  us,  that 
on  our  being  unwarily  entangled,  we  might  not  be  able  to  make 
good  our  retreat ;  while  he,  taking  advantage  of  our  embarrass- 
ment, might  make  us  an  easy  prey.  Kis  view  in  its  introduction, 
was  to  deprive  us  of  the  advantage  of  one  of  the  most  powerful 
arguments  in  favour  of  believers'  baptism  :  To  wit,  That  every 
ordinance  which  God  has  appointed  in  his  church  must  either 
have  an  express  command,  or  else  the  examples  of  the  apostles 
for  it.  He  plainly  saw,  that  if  the  controversy  must  take  this 
turn,  the  cause  of  infant  baptism  must  be  ruined  entirely  ;  for 
he  well  knew,  and  made  no  scruple  to  acknowledge  it,  that  there 
is  no  one  text  in  which  infants  are  commanded  to  be  baptized, 
nor  yet  one  example  on  record  of  its  having  been  attended  to. 
In  this  dilemma,  what  was  to  be  done  ?  not  one  text,  not  one  ex- 
ample in  its  favour  !  The  only  expedient  was  to  shew,  or  at  least 
m?,ke  an  attempt  so  to  do,  that  while  the  Baptists  were  strenuous 
in  demanding  positive  proof,  or  plain  example,  as  to  the  subjects 
and  mode  of  baptism  ;  they  were  not  so  careful  in  other  things, 
but  inferred  their  duty  in  other  things,  where  no  such  command 
or  example  did  exist.  In  order  to  prove  his  point,  he  introduced 
our  practice  of  admitting  believing  females  to  the  communion, 
when,  he  asserts,  there  is  neither  command  or  example  thereof 
in  all  God's  book. — Now  vou  plainly  see  at  what  he  aims,  which 
is  nothing  less  than  to  have  us  believe,  that  no  positive  command, 
nor  yet  example,  is  necessary  to  prove  what  the  ordinances  and 
worship  of  God  ought  to  be ;  but  that  men  are  left  to  infer  their 
duty  from  a  former  practice  under  another  dispensation.  This 
will  at  once  convince  us  how  very  important  it  was  to  gain  his 
point  here,  and  will  readily  excuse  his  great  anxiety  about  the 
fate  of  the  question,  the  uncommon  labour  bestowed  to  establish 
it,  and  the  very  numerous  repetitions  of  the  same  arguments  ; 
making  it  take  up  the  greatest  part  of  his  book  ;  for,  if  he  failed 
here,  all  was  gone,  and  he  knew  if  he  was  put  on  proving  of  it 
by  precepts  or  example,  he  should  not  be  able  to  do  it  by  one 
solitary  text,  or  yet  one  example.     Nothing  can  set  this  in  a 


44 

clearer  light  than  to  address  to  him  a  few  queries,  which  the. 
Baptists,  on  their  principles,  could  answer  with  the  greatest 
ease  :  To  wit, 

Q.  Do  vou  believe  infants  ought  to  be  baptized  ? 

A.  Yes'. 

Q.  Why  do  you  believe  thus  ? 

A.  Because  the  scriptures  authorize  our  practice. 

Q.  Where  do  you  find  one  text  commanding  the  baptizing 
of  infants,  or  one  example  that  it  was  done  by  the  apostles  ? 

A.  We  do  not  pretend  there  is  any :  but  then  we  infer  their 
privilege,  from  the  church  membership  of  infants  among  the 
Jews ;  from  "households  being  baptized,"  wherein  it  is  probable 
there  were  infants ;  and  from  the  circumstance  of  Christ "  putting 
his  hands  on  little  children  and  blessing  them." 

Now  reader,  you  may  readily  see  that  not  one  example  or 
command  is  in  their  favour,  and  it  is  not  possible  for  them  to 
say  more  for  the  practice,  than  what  is  contained  in  the  answers 
to  the  above  queries  ;  neither  has  any  Pcedobaptist  pretended, 
and  I  am  bold  to  affirm,  never  will  pretend  to  say  more,  or  to 
adduce  either  precept  or  example  for  it  from  the  New  Testament. 
But  only  address  such  queries  to  a  Baptist,  and  see  with  what 
ease  they  are  answered, — an  example  of  which  take  : 

P.  You  only  baptize  believers  on  a  profession  of  their  faith, 
whence  do  you  derive  your  authority  ? 

B.  From  the  word  of  God,  which  says,  "  Then  they  that 
gladly  received  his  word  were  baptized,"  Acts  ii.  41.  "  The 
Lord  opened  Lydia's  heart,  and  afterward  she  was  baptized," 
Acts  xvi.  14.  "  When  they  [the  Samaritans]  believed  Philip 
preaching  the  things  concerning  the  kingdom  of  God,  they  were 
baptized  both  men  and  women,"  Acts  viii.  12. 

P.  But  all  this  only  speaks  of  men  and  women,  and  it  is  only 
said  of  them,  that  they  must  believe  ;  but  how  does  this  affect 
the  case  of  infants,  and  especially  those  of  believing  parents  ; 
may  they  not  have  been  baptized,  even  though  they  could  not 
exercise  faith  ? 

B.  No,  by  no  means ;  for  certainly,  if  infants  had  been  bap- 
tized, it  ought  to  have  been  mentioned  somewhere,  which  is 
not  the  case ;  and  if  the  children  of  believers  were  so  dealt  with, 
one  would  suppose  the  text  would  say  he  baptized  men,  women, 
and  children,  or  the  children  of  those  believers  at  least ;  but 
the  text  says  no  such  tiling.  Besides,  faith  was  required,  Acts 
viii.  37.  u  If  thou  believest  with  all  thine  heart,  thou  mayest ;" 
which  evidently'  implies  a  prohibition  if  no  faith  exists  ;  and 
you  have  never  pretended  that  infants  believe.  Moreover,  the 
plea  for  baptism  by  birth-right,  or  being  Abraham's  children, 
was  rejected  by  John,  and  which  is  the  thing  you  insist  on ; 


45 

Matth.  iii.  8,  9.  "  Bring  forth  therefore  fruits  meet  for  repent- 
ance ;  and  think  not  to  say,  We  have  Abraham  to  our  father.'"' 
Do  you  not  now,  reader,  see  that  if  the  Baptists  are  called  on 
for  precept  and  example,  they  can  furnish  both  with  promptness, 
and  that  when  our  opponents  are  pressed,  they  are  entirely  at  a 
loss,  and  are  obliged  to  depend  on  inference  for  the  support  of 
their  practice  ?  This  then,  at  once  evinces  the  reason  of  his  over 
anxietv  about  the  fate  of  the  question  concerning  female  com- 
munion ;  as  upon  it  the  success  of  his  book  depended.  Although 
it  is  due  to  him  to  say  he  possesses  talent  at  argument,  yet  it 
must  not  be  taken  amiss  if  I  equally  affirm,  that  he  has  availed 
himself  of  the  weaknesses  of  human  nature  to  gain  his  point, 
and  has  addressed  himself  to  the  feelings,  rather  than  to  the 
judgment  of  his  readers.     Why  does  he  make  the  baptism  and 
the  salvation  of  infants  but  one  question,  and  insinuate  that  if 
they  may  not  be  baptized  they  will  be  lost?  Is  it  because  the 
Baptists  believe  so  ?  Or  rather,  is  it  not  to  enlist  the  prejudices 
of  parents  against  us,  when  he  at  the  same  time  knew  these 
were  not  our  sentiments,  and  that  one  Was  no  way  connected 
with  the  other?  So  in  this  question,  he  affects  to  be  the  precious 
friend  of  females,  and  to  uphold  their  rights,  while  he  wishes 
it  to  be  understood  that  his  opponents  are  the  reverse.     In  this 
his  wish  seems  to  be,  that  females  should  make  of  it  a  common 
cause  with  him  against  the  Baptists.     The  insinuation  is,  that 
if  the   Baptists  be  right,    then   females  must  give  up  their 
pretentions  to  the  supper.  To  put  his  argument  in  other  words, 
it  would  stand  thus :  i  Ye  fair  daughters  of  men,  come,  assemble 
yourselves  ;  lend  your  aid  against  the  might)' ;  the  Baptists 
have  invaded  your  dearest  rights  and  those  of  your  babes  ;  they 
have  already  forbidden  the  baptizing  of  your  children,  and  you 
know  if  they  are  not  good  enough  to  be  baptized,  they  are  not 
fit  to  go  to  heaven  ;  and  not  content  with  this,  they  are  about 
depriving  you  of  your  right  to  the  supper.    If  you  tamely  stand 
by  and  suffer  your  children  to  be  excluded  from  baptism,  are  you 
willing  to  give  up  your  own  privileges  ?  Do  you  not  know  that 
although  there  is  neither  example  nor  precept  in  the   New 
Testament  in  favour  of  infant  baptism,  it  is  just  the  same  with 
female  communion  ;  and  if  you  will  not  allow  us  to  prove  the 
first  by  mere  inference,  neither  can  we  avail  ourselves  of  it  in 
your  case?   We,  indeed,  are  your  only  friends,  and  are  for 
defending  your  right  to  the  supper :  but  it  must  be  on  this 
condition,  that  you  help  us  in  the  controversy  about  the  bap- 
tizing of  infants ;    and  that  you   roundly   assert  there  is  no 
necessity  for  precept  or  example  in  the  New  Testament  to 
warrant  it,  but  that  it  may  fairly  be  proved  by  inferences  only, 
and  these  mostly  from  the  writings  of  Moses.' 

■G 


46 

What  would  Mr.  E.  gain  by  it,  if  he  could  prove  what  he  says 
about  females,  that  there  is  no  precept  or  example  that  justifies 
their  coming  to  the  communion  ?  would  that  make  it  appear  that 
mere  inference  is  sufficient  to  warrant  the  establishment  of  an 
ordinance  ?  Has  God  ever  done  so  I  Has  he  been  in  the  practice 
of  leaving  that  which  concerns  his  worship  so  entirely  in  the 
dark,  and  to  the  mere  caprice  of  man,  whose  depraved  heart 
is  continually  leading  him  astray  ?  Let  any  man  examine  the 
Jewish  worship,  and  see  if  God  did  not  go  entirely  on  different 
principles,  and  so  far  from  leaving  them  to  infer  their  duty,  he 
was  on  tl*e  contrary  so  exceedingly  jealous  of  innovation,  or 
mistake,  that  he  describes  the  tabernacle,  its  contents,  the  mate- 
rials of  which  to  be  made  ;  and  not  satisfied  to  say  it  should 
be  covered  with  skins,  but  the  very  beast  whence  they  should 
be  taken,  Exod.  xxv.  5.  In  the  offerings,  the  salt  is  mentioned, 
and  the  quantity,  Lev.  ii.  13. — Sacrifices,  what  part  to  be 
burnt,  and  where.;  Lev.  viii.  35. — what  to  be  eaten,  verse  15. 
— where  the  blood  poured  out — where  the  blood  applied  in 
sanctification,tip  of  the  toe,  right  thumb,  right  ear,  chap.  xiv.  14. 
— scarlet  wool,  hyssop,  and  cedar  wood  to  be  tied  together,  and 
this  dipped  in  the  blood,  verse  6. — Not  a  heifer  only,  but  a  red 
one  commanded  to  be  had,  Num.  x.  2.  Now,  is  it  possible  for 
us  to  conceive  that  such  precaution  should  be  used,  and  such 
precision  enjoined,  u  And  look  that  thou  make  them  according 
to  the  pattern  which  was  shewed  thee  in  the  Mount,"  Exod. 
xv.  40.  and  that  relating  to  a  worship  that  was  to  stand  only  for 
a  time,  and  vanish  entirely  when  Christ  came  ;  and  yet  leave 
in  total  uncertainty  gospel  worship,  which  was  never  to  be 
removed,  but  to  continue  to  the  end  of  the  world  ? — Yet,  absurd 
as  such  a  sentiment  is,  it  is  that  which  our  opponents  defend  ; 
for  while  they  contend  they  are  left  to  infer  their  duty  under  the 
present  dispensation,  when  they  allow  there  was  no  such  latitude 
given  under  the  former  ;  do  they  not  set  the  former  above  the 
latter,  and  Moses  above  Christ,  by  admitting,  that  in  the  former 
duty  was  clearly  defined y  while  in  the  latter  it  must  be  guessed 

But  were  the  right  of  females  to  communion,  to  stand  in 
reality  on  no  better  ground  than  mere  inference,  (and  which  he 
contends  it  does  not)  and  that  there  is  not  one  precept  or 
example  to  authorize  it,  does  Mr.  E.  think  we  are  afraid  to 
meet  die  consequence  fairly,  and  that  rather  than  offend  the 
ladies,  we  should  admit  an  unscriptural  practice  ?  No,  Mr*  E. 
you  have  mistaken  the  Baptists  ;  we  would  meet  all  the 
consequences  in  such  a  case,  and  though  wTe  should,  by  that 
means  alienate  from  us  the  affections  of  female  disciples  ;  yet, 
^here  favouring  them  would  precipitate  us  into  rebellion  against 


47 

the  Head  of  the  church,  we  should,  in  that  case,  cheerfully 
forfeit  their  good  opinion.  But  certainly  Mr.  E  could  not  on 
that  account  blame  us  ;  for  he  wishes  the  Jewish  church,  as  he 
calls  it,  to  be  our  model,  and  has  asserted  that  circumcision  wa* 
the  initiating  right  therein.  Then,  of  consequence,  the  Jewish 
females  were  never  in  his  model  of  a  church ;  and  if  he  has  felt 
no  reluctance  in  proving  they  had  no  right  there,  certainly  he 
could  not  censure  us  in  a  like  case.  But  it  may  be,  he  would  at 
least  have  remonstrated  against  the  order,  had  he  then  lived,  and 
loudly  censured  Moses,  as  he  now  does  the  Baptists.  Yes,  the 
husbands  would  have  had  ample  trouble  with  their  wives  ;  for 
Mr.  E.  would  have  been  seen  at  the  head  of  them  to  assert 
their  rights,  and  if  he  could  not  find  precept  or  example,  he 
would,  no  doubt,  have  found  inferences  enough  in  their  favour. 

Allowing  Mr.  E.  to  be  right,  what  would  the  argument 
amount  to  ?  would  it  not  express  just  thus  much  ?  u  If  you  are 
right,  that  we  must  practice  nought  as  worship,  but  what  is 
commanded,  or  for  which  there  is  an  example,  then  you  are 
wrong  as  well  as  we  are,  for  you  practice  female  communion 
without  either."  But  who  ever  thought  that  two  wrongs  made 
a  right  ?  This  is  preposterous  indeed,  that  because  the  Baptists 
have  done  wrong,  their  neighbours  may  do  the  same ! !  If  we 
have  departed  from  God's  word  in  this,  which  we  assuredly 
have,  if  there  is  neither  command  or  example  ;  does  that  give 
licence  to  others  to  go  greater  lengths,  and  is  their  sin  justified 
bv  ours  ?  But  what  if  it  should  be  found,  reader,  that  our  case  is  not 
so  very  deplorable  as  this  gentleman  has  represented  it ;  and,  that, 
he  assumed  for  a  fact  that  which  he  ought  first  to  have  proved  ? 
I  hope  to  make  it  appear,  this  is  indeed  the  case,  and  that  female 
communion  is  really  warranted  by  the  word,  at  least  by  direct 
example,  if  not  by  positive  command.  Should  this  be  done, 
one  half  of  his  book  is  gone  at  once ;  his  empty  vapour  and 
indecent  vulgarity  will  appear  in  their  true  light;  and  then, 
unsupported  by  either  example  or  precept  of  the  divine  word, 
nor  yet  shielded  by  the  sin  of  the  Baptists,  truth  will  consign  his 
performance  to  merited  contempt. 

He  affirms,  that  we  are  opposed  to  reasoning  by  inference. 
In  this  he  has  also  misrepresented  us ;  for  it  is  not  inferences 
drawn  from  suitable  pre)nises,  that  we  are  opposed  to :  but  when 
our  opponents  affirm,  that  they  are  at  liberty  to  infer  New 
Testament  worship  from  the  ceremonial  law,  which  would 
imply  a  censure  on  the  Head  of  the  church  for  neglect  in  matters 
of  worship,  and  by  setting  aside  precept  and  example  clear  as 
the  day,  in  order  to  admit  their  inferences ;  we  do,  indeed,  deny 
such  premises  and  such  conclusions  to  be  correct.  Let  us,  for 
a  moment,  indulge  the  gentleman  in  his  excursions,  and  w^ 


48 
aliajl  see  -whether  he  is  willing  to  admit  his  own  reasoning  in  ita 
full  extent.  Let  him  for  the  present  take  it  for  granted,  that  he 
may  infer  from  the  ancient  economy  rules  of  worship  for  the 
new,  and  see  whither  it  will  lead.  His  argument  is  this  :  c  The 
New  Testament,'  says  he,  '  is  clear  as  to  the  baptism  of  adults, 
and  we  do  not  deny  that  of  them  faith  and  repentance  were 
required  as  qualifications  ;  but  as  it  respects  infants,  though 
there  is  nothing  said  about  their  baptism,  yet  infant  church 
membership  being  a  thing  not  disputed,  the  silence  of  the  New 
Testament  on  that  subject  is  no  evidence  against  their  right ; 
but  we  are  left  to  infer  it  from  the  former  dispensation.'  The 
sum  of  the  argument  then,  is  this  :  the  silence  of  the  New 
Testament  is  no  evidence,  that  an  ordinance  which  had  been 
formerly  used  in  the  Jewish  church  was  done  away ;  yea,  it 
goes  farther,  and  affirms,  that  the  *  practice  being  a  thing  well 
known,'  if  its  continuance  is  not  forbidden,  or  set  aside  by  some- 
thing positive,  that  christians  in  such  a  case  are  bound  to  infer 
their  duty  from  that  silence,  and  to  continue  the  practice.  Now, 
sir,  are  you  prepared  to  go  the  lengths  to  which  this  will  carry 
you  ?  Where  is  it  said  of  any  particular  Jewish  rite,  that  it  is 
done  away?  But  if  you  will  thus  affirm,  must  you  not  admit 
all  the  Jewish  worship  ;  for  where  is  it  expressly  said  to  be  laid 
aside,  or  prohibited  ;  or  who  gave  you  liberty  to  say  this  one 
part  is  retained  but  all  the  rest  are  abolished  ?  Your  favourite 
argument,  u  the  silence  of  the  word,"  will  make  entirely  against 
you  here.  "  No,"  say  you,  "  rites  are  done  away,  all  of  them, 
but  then  the  church  is  substantially  the  same,  and  therefore  I 
infer  infant  membership  from  the  standing  of  children  there." 
Well,  let  it  be  so,  is  your  cause  bettered  by  this  ?  you  infer  the 
membership  of  infants  from  their  being  in  the  Jewish  church, 
and  cannot  you  infer  the  membership  of  a  whole  nation  on  the 
same  principles  ;  yea,  of  the  most  wicked  and  abominable 
creatures  that  ever  lived  on  the  face  of  the  whole  earth  ?  for 
there  was  no  distinction  on  that  account.  Now  it  comes  to  this, 
that  either  you  must  give  up  your  plea,  that  a  mere  membership 
there  entitles  to  membership  in  a  gospel  church,  or  else  you 
must  make  the  church  of  God  now  to  be  thronged  with  prosti- 
tutes and  murderers  ;  for  such  were  members  of  what  you  call 
the  Jewish  church,  as  an  attention  to  their  history  recorded  in 
the  word,  will  abundantly  testify.  But  you  shall  hear  more  of 
this  in  its  proper  place. 

Once  more  :  On  the  subject  of  reasoning  by  inference,  our 
opinions  are  not  as  Mr.  E.  states.  The  Baptists  do  not  deny 
the  lawfulness  of  reasoning  by  inference,  and  Mr.  E.  knew  they 
did  not :  but  they  do  deny,  that  any  positive  institute  ought  to 
have  nothing  but  inference  for  its  basis  j  and  they  do  also  deny, 


49 

that  inferences  drawn  from  false  premises  are  conclusive  in 
argument.  Is  there  no  difference  between  denying  inference 
altogether,  and  only  denying  it  in  irrelevant  cases  ?  Yet,  strange 
as  it  may  appear  to  the  pious,  Mr,  E.  hazarded  the  assertion, 
without  any  manner  proof,  yes,  and  contrary  to  his  own  con- 
viction, that  we  disallow  reasoning  by  inference  altogether.  If 
the  controversy  about  infant  baptism  must  be  decided  by  infer- 
ence, let  it  be  so  :  but  then,  let  those  deductions  be  natural,  and 
let  them  be  derived  from  the  New  Testament;  for  it  is  manifest, 
that  from  this  source  only  can  we  infer,  with  any  degree  of 
certainty,  what  is  to  be  done  in  worship.  Are  you  willing,  Mr. 
E.  or  are  any  of  your  brethren  willing  to  meet  us  on  this  ground? 
If  you  are  willing,  tell  us  so ;  and  we  promise  you,  that  from  us 
you  shall  never  hear  any  objection  to  analogy  and  inference,  as  it 
relates  to  this  controversy ;  for  if  the  weight  of  inference  on  your 
side,  fairly  drawn  from  the  New  Testament,  will  preponderate  in 
favour  of  infant  baptism,  then  will  your  cause  be  gained.  But 
no,  you  will  not  accede  to  this  proposal,  and  that  for  this  plain 
reason,  that  it  is  not  on  inferences  drawn  from  the  writings  of 
Christ  and  his  apostles,  that  you  rely  for  success  ;  but,  strange 
to  tell,  it  is  on  inferences  from  the  Old  Testament  worship,  and 
from  a  a  covenant  waxed  old,"  which  has  given  place  to  one 
entirely  new. 

This  gives  a  new  turn  to  the  controversy,  and  the  question 
between  us  and  our  opponents  is  not  about  the  lazvfulness  of 
inferential  reasoning,  but  concerns  the  source  from  whence  these 
inferences  are  to  be  drawn.  Can  any  just  reason  be  assigned  by 
them,  why  we  should  admit  inference  from  a  church  dissolved^ 
and  a  worship  done  away,  in  order  to  prove  what  a  church  now 
is,  and  what  worship  should  be  established  ?  Our  opponents 
say,  we  will  go  to  the  writings  of  Moses  in  order  to  prove  that 
infants  ought  to  be  baptized  :  but  why  go  to  Moses  ?  will  not 
the  evangelists  and  episdes  do?  or  do  you  mean  to  say  the 
former  are  to  be  trusted  and  the  latter  not  ?  or  they  were  better 
informed  than  these  ?  If  our  opponents  refuse  to  receive  the 
decision  of  the  New  Testament  on  this  controversy,  which  they 
assuredly  will,  if  it  must  stand  by  itself;  what  does  such  a 
refusal  imply,  but  that  the  weight  of  argument  would  be  in 
favour  of  the  Baptists  ?  Had  the  question  been,  What  was  the 
duty  of  a  Jew,  when  under  the  former  dispensation  ;  how 
natural  would  it  be  to  search  the  writings  of  Moses  for  informa- 
tion? and  if  the  question  of  those  under  the  present  dispensation 
is,  What  are  the  duties  of  a  christian ;  is  it  not  natural  to  enquire 
at  the  mouth  of  Christ  and  his  apostles,  who  were  the  authors 
and  propagators  of  the  gospel  ?  No,  no,  say  our  opponents,  this 
will  not  do,  we  must  ask  the  advice  of  Moses  as  to  this  thing ;  we 


must  search  the  house  of  the  vk  servant,"  in  order  to  see  what 
furniture  would  be  suitable  for  the  house  of  the  master  ;  and  we 
must  go  to  a  dispensation  acknowledged  to  be  an  imperfect  and 
shadowy  one,  in  order  to  find  out  that  which  is  perfect.  I  now 
appeal  to  the  reader,  whether  the  refusal  of  our  opponents  to 
decide  this  controversy,  only  by  recurring  to  the  New  Testament, 
does  not  carry  in  it  a  charge    .  Christ  and  his  apostles  for 

not  having  been  sufficiently  explicit ;  and,  at  the  same  time, 
compliment  the  Jewish  economy  as  more  perfect  ? 

I  once  more  repeat  it,  that  if  our  opponents  will  confine  them- 
selves to  the  writings  of  Christ  and  his  apostles,  we  will  consent 
to  all  the  liberty  they  ask,  to  reason  by  analogy  and  inference  ; 
and  so  far  from  denying  the  justness  of  the  demand  under  these 
restrictions,  we  shall  be  the  first  to  plead  for  it,  and  no  doubt  should 
soon  have  them  the  adversaries  of  it.  But  if  they  will  have  it  to 
extend  even  to  the  Old  Testament,  it  lays  on  them  first  to  shew, 
by  fair  and  substantial  reasons,  that  they  are  at  liberty  thus  to 
do.  Until  this  previous  question  is  settled  all  is  wrong,  and  I 
hope  to  prove  ere  this  is  finished,  that  they  are  not  entitled  to 
such  liberties. 

Now,  reader,  take  notice  :  The  whole  plea  of  our  opponents 
for  infant  bapt  Is  entirely  on  their  doctrine  of  infant 

church-membership  ;  for  they  say,  that  they  never  pretended  to 
prove  that  Christ  gave  such  a  command,  nor  yet  that  there  is 
one  positive  instance  of  it  in  the  word:  but  that  M  infants  were 
in  the  church,"  and  they  infer  their  privilege  from  this  circum- 
stance. But  where  is  the  proof  that  they  were  in  the  church  ? 
Whence  do  they  derive  this  information  r  Was  it  from  the 
evangelists  or  apostles  I  Xo,  both  these  are  entirely  silent  on 
that  subject ;  and  dees  it  not  appear  marvellous  indeed,  that 
ats  should  be  in  the  church  and  nothing  said  about  it  at  all  ? 
From  hence  arises  the  necessity-  of  going  awav  from  Christ  and 
his  apostles  to  find  out  their  right  to  church  membership,  and 
of  travelling  into  the  Mosaic  economy;  and  having  found  them 
:  church  of  Moses,  they  bring  them  from  thence  into  the 
church  of  Christ,  and  after  thev  have  placed  them  there,  without 
divine  authority,  then  thev  infer  their  baptism  from  being  found 
there.  If  our  opponents  would  agree  to  be  governed  by  the 
above  propos.  uld  then  address  to  them  this  question  : 

Where  do  you  find  in  the  New  Testament,  that  the  infant  seed 
qf  beh  .   :r  ethers,  were  in  the  gospel  church  :  for  if  you 

will  shew  the  place  that  proves  it,  or  bv  fair  inference  therefrom 
make  it  appear,  you  then  gain  the  point.  Xow,  in  what  a  sad 
case  would  they  be !  no  such  text  could  be  found ;  no  reasonings 
by  inference  or  analogy  from  thence  could  establish  it ;  and,  of 
course,  even  allowing  them  their  favourite  mode  of  reasoning 


by  inference  altogether,  their  cause  would  be  wholly  ruined.  I 
call  upon  Mr.  E.  and  upon  any  of  the  Pcedobaptist  brethren,  to 
produce  a  text,  one  solitary  text,  from  one  end  of  the  New 
Testament  to  the  other,  where  it  is  said  infants  were  in  the 
gospel  church,  or  ought  to  be  there  !  Where  is  all  your  boasted 
argument,  founded  on  inference  and  analogy  ?  is  it  not  dissipated 
and  passed  off  in  thin  air,  and  are  you  not  left  without  a  single 
weapon  for  defence  ?  I  undertake,  reader,  to  prove  before  I 
have  done,  that  all  that  has  been  said  about  the  Jewish  church 
does  not  apply  to  the  gospel  church  ;  and  that  there  was  no 
more  likeness  between  that  and  a  gospel  church,  than  between 
a  mere  commonwealth  and  a  church. 

But  I  ask  our  opponents,  whether  the  Baptists  would  be  in 
such  a  plight,  were  thev  called  upon  to  prove  their  practice 
from  the  New  Testament  only,  without  resorting  to  the  Old  ? 
To  make  the  reverse  appear,  I  will  address  a  few  questions  to 
him,  which  a  Pcedobaptist  never  can  answer,  and  which  the  other 
can  do  with  ease  : 

P.  How  do  you  prove  that  believing  men  and  women,  and 
that  such  only,  were  in  the  gospel  church  ;  and  that  such  only* 
were  entitled  to  ordinances  ? 

B.  I  prove  it  two  ways  ;  first,  by  positive  command  and 
example,  and  secondly,  by  inference.  1.  By  command  and  exam- 
ple thus  :  "  Teach  all  nations,  baptizing  them,  Matth.  xxviii. 
19. — If  thou  believest  thou  mayest,  Acts  viii.  37. — They  were 
baptized  both  men  and  women,  Acts  viii.  12. — There  arose  a 
murmuring  of  the  Grecians  against  the  Hebrews,  because  their 
widows  were  neglected,  Acts  vi.  1. — Phcebe  our  sister,  Rom. 
xvi.  1. — Let  your  women  keep  silence  in  the  churches,  1  Cor. 
xiv.  34. — Receive  not  a  widow  into  the  number,"  1  Tim.  iv.  9. 
16. — 2.  I  infer  the  church  membership  of  men  and  women, 
because  they  are  even'  way  capable  of  the  prerequisites,  and 
because  it  is  said  multitudes  of  believers  were  added  to  the 
churches,  Acts  iv.  32. — And  both  men  and  women  believed, 
Acts  xvii.  12. — 3.  That  infants  were  not — first,  from  the  entire 
silence  of  the  New  Testament  about  this  thing  ;  secondly,  no 
mention  is  made  of  their  being  baptized  at  any  time  or  place, 
when  both  sexes  were  mentioned,  and  their  qualifications  as 
believers  ;  thirdly,  they  are  not  able  to  perform  the  duties  of 
such,  nor  can  others  for  them  ;  fourthly,  as  what  is  said  aboui: 
members  of  a  gospel  church  can  by  no  means  agree  with  infants. 
Here,  you  see  how  readily  a  Baptist  could  answer  any  queries 
addressed  to  him  from  his  opponent,  without  the  aid  of  a  former 
dispensation,  and  that  the  New  Testament  furnishes  proof  in 
point*  But  let  the  same  questions  be  addressed  to  a  PcsJobaptist^ 


52 

and  then  see  how  aukwardly  he  manages  the  business,  when  he 
stands  or  falls  by  New  Testament  decision — thus  : 

B.  What  positive  or  inferential  proof  can  you  bring  from  the 
New  Testament,  to  make  it  evident  that  infants  were  members 
of  the  apostolic  churches  ? 

P.  As  to  positive  proof,  I  do  not  pretend  to  any  ;  for  it  is  no 
where  said  of  them  in  express  words,  that  they  were  added  to 
the  church  ;  but  then  as  I  believe  they  were  so  considered,  I 
infer  their  membership  from  certain  texts. 

B.  What  texts  are  these,  from  which  you  infer  their  right  ? 

P.  I  do  infer  it,  1.  from  Mark  x.  14.  "  Suffer  little  children  to 
come  unto  me,  and  forbid  them  not ;  2.  from  Acts  ii.  39.  "  The 
promise  is  unto  you,  and  to  your  children  ;"  and  several  others. 

B.  There  is  not  any  thing  said  of  church  membership  in  these 
texts ;  and  of  the  first  it  is  said,  he  called  them  in  order  to  lay 
his  hands  on  them,  Mark  x.  16.  and  of  the  other  it  is  not  said 
of  all  their  children,  but  only  of  them  the  Lord  should  call,  verse 
39.  to  whom  alone  the  promises  were  made,  Acts  ii.  37.  But 
we  shall  in  a  proper  place  bestow  more  attention  on  these  texts. 

Now  would  such  passages  as  these,  which  have  no  bearing  on 
the  subject,  be  sufficient  to  establish  infant  church  membership? 
Would  inferences  like  these  weigh  sufficiently  to  satisfy  an 
enquiring  mind,  that  infants  were  members  of  the  church  of 
Jesus  Christ  ?  The  texts  produced  prove  just  nothing  at  all  in 
favour  of  Posdobaptism. 

To  pursue  Mr.  E.  it  will  be  necessary,  1.  To  consider  his 
Argument  on  female  communion— expose  his  misrepresentations 
— and  shew,  that  contrary  to  his  assertion,  there  is  both  example 
and  precept  for  it.  2.  Examine  his  method  of  getting  over  those 
texts,  where  faith  and  repentance  are  required  in  order  to  bap- 
tism. 3.  Investigate  what  he  calls  a  scripture  proof,  that  infants 
are  in  membership  with  the  church  of  Christ  under  the  gospel 
dispensation.  4.  We  shall  afterward  examine,  what  is  called 
the  Jewish  and  also  the  gospel  church.  We  shall  then  contrast 
them  ;  when  it  will  evidentlv  appear,  that  howeve  infants  might 
have  been  connected  with  the  one,  they  can  by  no  means  be 
with  the  other. 

STRICTURES  ON  CHAPTER  FIRST. 

He  says.  Chap.  I.  That  for  a  Baptist  to  demand  an  example  or 
positive  command  in  order  to  know  what  worship  ought  to  be 
performed  is  u  assuming — contracted — false."  Is  it  assuming  in 
a  Baptist  to  enquire  of  God  what  he  would  have  him  to  do? 
I  should  verily  have  thought  that  it  wei*e  a  great  evidence  of  his 
humility,  and  that  the  gendemaa  who  brings  the  charge  is  the 


53 

assuming  character  ;  but  it  seems,  that  it  is  more  pleasing  to 
Jehovah  for  his  creatures  to  act  without  instructions  from  him, 
than  to  consult  him  in  all  they  do  of  a  religious  nature.  An 
assumer,  is  an  haughty,  an  arrogant  person  ;  but,  judge  ye, 
brethren,  to  whom  does  this  belong,  to  the  gentleman,  or  to 
the  Baptists  ?  Will  not  candour  decide,  that  those  who  are 
setting  up  their  own  reason,  in  place  of  God's  word,  are  the 
arrogant  and  impertinent  persons  in  question  ;  and  not  those 
who  rely  entirely  on  divine  instruction,  and  make  their  reason 
bend  to  that  ?  Now  the  former  is  true  of  them,  and  the  latter 
of  the  Baptists.  But  if  our  opponents  call  it  assuming  in  us  to 
say  we  must  depend  on  a  revelation,  in  order  to  know  the  mind 
and  will  of  God  ;  we  would  ask  them,  in  turn,  by  what  other 
means  they  will  attain  such  knowledge,  and  whether  a  denial 
of  such  information  being  necessary  does  not  turn  us  over  again 
to  what  the  infidel  calls  *  natural  religion  V 

It  must  be  allowed,  that  to  be  left  to  gather  our  duty  by 
inference  and  deduction  only,  is,  to  speak  the  least  of  it,  a  very 
doubtful  and  uncertain  way.  Now,  is  it  any  how  to  be  credited, 
that  the  Head  of  the  church  would  leave  us  in  a  state  of  uncer- 
tainty, when  it  cannot  be  denied,  that  he  could  with  equal  ease, 
put  us  in  possession  of  his  mind  and  will  unequivocally  ?  I  say, 
is  not  such  a  sentiment  repugnant  to  all  the  ideas  we  have  ever 
entertained  of  him  ?  Yet  if  the  above  sentiment  be  true,  this  is 
certainly  the  case,  and  we  must  believe  that  he  has  left  these 
things  in  obscurity  with  design  ;  but  is  not  this  arrogancy  and 
impiety  with  a  witness  ? 

He  says  farther,  the  sentiment  maintained  by  us,  "  that  there 
ought  to  be  precept  or  example"  is  "  contracted ;"  affirming, 
that  God  can  use  different  methods  of  instruction.  I  believe 
that  he  has  done  this  indeed,  as  it  relates  to  infants  ;  for  he  has 
not  only  passed  over  them  in  silence,  when  membership  in  the 
church  is  spoken  of,  but  he  has-  also,  in  describing  the  qualifi- 
cations and  duties  of  a  church  member,  abundantly  shewn,  that 
infants,  as  such,  are  entirely  unqualified  for  such  a  station.  Now, 
if  the  gentleman  desires  to  know  what  methods  he  has  taken  to 
inform  us  on  this  point,  they  are,  as  he  would  have  them  to  be, 
many  and  various.  First,  No  mention  is  made  of  their  being  in 
the  apostolic  church ;  no  exhortations  are  addressed  to  parents  or 
guardians  to  bring  them  in,  as  were  to  the  Jews  of  old.  Qualifica- 
tions are  required,  which  they  do  not  possess  ;  duties  enjoined, 
which  they  cannot  perform  themselves,  nor  others  for  them  ; 
things  said  of  the  church,  which  will  by  no  means  agree  with 
their  membership  ;  and,lest  such  membership  should  be  inferred 
from  the  Jewish  church  state,  it  is  called  "  a  covenant  made 
old,  Heb.  viii.  13, — said  to  have  vanished  awav,  Heb.  xviii.  13. 

H 


54 

— to  have  lasted  until  John,  Luke  xvi.  16. — this  gospel  dispen- 
sation, said  not  to  be  according  to  the  covenant  made  with 
th^ir  fathers,  Heb.  viii.  9. — the  plea  of  being  Abraham's  chil- 
dren being  rejected,"  Matth.  iii.  9.  Will  this  suit  you,  sir  ? 
Surely,  you  will  not  say  the  Baptists  are  contracted  after  this, 
when  we  not  only  insist  on  it,  there  is  neither  precept  nor 
example  for  infant  membership  ;  but  also,  that  the  whole  New 
Testament  aims  at  it  a  deadly  blow. 

He  also  says,  the  above  sentiment  is  "  false,"  and  attempts 
to  prove  it  by  the  practice  of  the  Baptists,  and  others,  who 
admit  females  to  communion  without  a  divine  warrant.  If  it 
were  as  this  gentleman  says,  that  there  is  no  such  warrant  by 
precept  or  example,  what  would  he  gain  by  it  ?  would  he  prove 
the  practice  right  ?  yea,  would  he  do  any  thing  more  at  last, 
than  to  prove  that  all  religious  denominations  have  acted  wrong 
in  this?  What  kind  of  reasoning  is  this?  '  There  is  no  command 
for,  nor  yet  example  in  the  New  Testament  of,  females  being 
admitted  to  communion  in  the  church ;  but  yet,  without  either, 
both  Baptists  and  Pcedobaptists  have  so  admitted  them,' therefore 
it  follows,  that  it  must  be  right,  because  they  have  so  done.  This, 
my  brethren,  would  be  making  the  old  abominable  doctrine  of 
Rome  true,  that  the  church  is  infallible,  that  she  cannot  err, 
that  she  has  a  power  to  dispense  with  the  laws  of  Christ ;  and 
it  would  make  her  independent  of  him  entirely :  it  would  be 
urging  the  corruptions  of  the  church  as  a  justification  of  her 
corruptions  ;  and  it  would,  in  that  case,  only  be  necessary  to 
practice  error,  in  order  to  make  it  right.  I  still  declare,  that 
if  females  have  no  better  right  to  the  Lord's  table  than  infants 
have  to  church  membership,  it  is  high  time  to  discontinue  the 
practice  ;  for  if  the  infallibility  of  the  church  must  be  admitted, 
and  the  old  popish  doctrine  received  on  that  ground  ;  and  if  the 
practice  of  the  church  will  justify  any  thing,  however  contra- 
dictory to  the  word,  it  is  most  proper  to  drop  every  practice 
that  would  militate  against  the  authority  of  Christ,  But  we 
utterly  deny,  that  female  communion  and  infant  church  mem- 
bership do  stand  on  the  same  ground  ;  we  are  satisfied  there  is 
a  divine  warrant  for  the  first,  and  none  whatever  for  the  last. 

Will  Mr.  E.  have  the  hardihood  to  affirm,  there  is  as  much 
said  about  infants  being  in  the  gospel  church,  as  there  is  about 
females  ?  If  he  will  not  venture  thus  to  assert,  and  which  he 
certainly  will  not,  how  came  he  to  make  their  cause  a  common 
one,  and  insinuate  that  if  the  one  is  not  to  be  admitted,  the  other 
ought  not  for  the  same  reason  ?  In  the  New  Testament,  you 
hear  it  is  said  expressly  of  females  thus  :  "  Woman,  great  is 
thy  faith — Thy  faith  hath  made  the  whole — Honourable  women 
not  a  few  believed — The  Lord  opened  Lydia's  heart — Priscilla 


55 

taught  Appollos  the  way  of  the  Lord  more  perfectly — Phcebe 
our  sister — He  baptized  both  men  and  women — Women  not  to 
speak  in  the  churches — The  Grecians  murmured  against  the 
Hebrews  because  their  widows  were  neglected  in  the  daily 
ministration — Have  not  I  power  to  lead  about  a  sister — Receive 
not  the  widows  into  the  number  under  threescore,"  1  Tim.  v.  9. 

Let  our  opponents  shew  us  where  any  thing  like  this  is  said 
of  infants  in  the  New  Testament,  and  then  they  will  hear  no 
more  of  the  Baptists  opposing  their  admission  into  the  church  ; 
but  they  know  that  a  profound  silence  is  observed  concerning 
them,  and  neither  do  they  place  much  reliance  on  inferences 
drawn  from  the  practice  of  the  apostles,  or  from  what  is  said 
concerning  them  in  the  New  Testament ;  but  chiefly  on  what 
they  gather  from  a  dispensation  "  done  away."  Every  thing 
relating  to  the  infant,  they  must  infer,  and  having  set  up  one 
inference,  they  then  infer  something  else  from  that  inference, 
and  then  a  third  from  the  second,  and  so  on  without  end.  Now, 
could  they  prove  infants  to  have  been  in  the  gospel  church,  and 
thence  infer  their  baptism  from  their  membership  ;  or  could 
they  have  shewn  that  these  were  baptized,  and  then  infer  their 
membership  from  their  baptism ;  or  could  they  have  shewn, 
that  the  duties  enjoined  upon  a  gospel  church,  and  the  things 
said  concerning  its  members,  were  enjoined  on  infants,  and 
would  well  agree  with  their  condition,  and  then  have  deduced 
their  membership  and  baptism  from  such  premises  ;  then  there 
might  have  been  some  shew  of  reason  on  their  side.  But,  no  : 
inference — inference — inference,  first  and  last,  all  is  inference  ! 

Of  females,  the  New  Testament  says,  they  were  baptized. 
If  you  would  infer  membership  from  baptism,  here  you  have  it : 
It  says  of  them,  that  they  were  in  the  church.  Would  you  infer 
their  baptism  from  thence  ?  Here  you  have  the  premises  ;  it 
says  they  believed,  repented,  and  had  the  qualifications  for 
church  members.  Would  you  infer  their  baptism  and  member- 
ship from  hence  ? — you  have  the  premises.  But  where  do 
you  find  any  thing  like  this  relative  to  infants  in  the  New 
Testament  ?  And  yet  we  are  told  by  Mr.  E.  that  the  right 
of  females  to  the  communion  is  no  better  established  than  that 
of  infants. 

Mr.  E.  says,  he  acknowledges  the  right  of  "  females  to  the 
supper."  We  do  not  thank  him  for  this,  because  he  dare  not 
do  otherwise.  But  then,  says  he,  we  have  no  "  exomple  nor 
express  law"  for  this  practice,  and  therefore  must  wholly  rest 
on  inference.  '  This  we  deny,  and  pledge  ourselves  to  maintain. 
&:e  contrary.  In  page  17,  he  states  a  conversation  had  with 
Baptists,  wherein  he  tried  his  strength  with  them,  and  shews 
how  much  they  were   surprized  and  mortified  ;    yea,   and 


56 

how  unable  they  were  to  make  any  answer;  at  all;  and  when 
answers  were  given  by  some,  how  wide  they  were  from  the 
mark*  It  is  not  for  me  to  say  whether  such  conversations  as 
these  really  took  place  or  not,  or  whether  they  were  the  pro- 
ductions of  a  biassed  imagination  ;  but  sure  I  am,  if  he  ever  had 
such  conversations,  and  such  were  in  reality  the  answers  given 
(the  truth  of  which  I  very  much  suspect)  he  must  have  chosen 
for  his  opponents  some  of  the  very  weakest  of  them,  and  that 
with  a  view  to  render  the  Baptists  ridiculous,  as  a  set  of  block- 
heads. Will  any  one  believe,  that  the  replies  made  to  the 
queries  he  put,  were  given  by  sensible  and  well  informed  men  ; 
or  that  the  preachers  who  are  said  to  have  so  much  "  marvelled" 
at  his  profound  knowledge,  were  men  of  real  sense  and  sound 
learning  ?  I  firmly  believe,  that  the  whole  of  this  was  designed 
as  a  compliment  on  himself,  and  to  make  those  of  his  sentiment 
believe,  that  he  had  discovered  a  method  of  copeing  with  the 
Baptists,  never  before  thought  of  by  any  of  his  predecessors  in 
controversy  ;  yet  it  is  well  known,  that  this  very  objection  has 
been  urged  again  and  again,  and  has  as  often  been  refuted.  The 
truth  is,  that  our  opponents  bring  forward  arguments  old  and 
stale  as  though  they  never  had  been  noticed. 

Mr.  E.  tells  us, "  one  Baptist  inferred  the  right  of  females  to 
communion  from  their  grace — another  from  their  baptism — a 
third  from  Jewish  females  eating  of  the  Paschal  Lamb — a  fourth 
from  their  being  God's  creatures,"  page  17.  Leaving  Mr.  E. 
to  amuse  himself  with  his  imaginary  men  of  straw,  we  will  try 
to  find  out  some  other  way  to  answer  him,  when  he  will  again 
have  an  opportunity  to  exercise  his  skill  at  misrepresentation. 
The  method  I  shall  follow,  is,  to  prove  the  positive  right  of 
females  to  communion  on  the  ground  of  church  membership, 
and  that  not  of  the  Jewish,  but  of  the  Gospel  church ;  and  then, 
secondly,  to  shew  that  his  overthrow  of  Mr.  Booth  was  mere 
pretence,  and  that  he  in  fact  never  fairlv  touched  his  argument 
at  all. 

I  am  now  reasoning  with  a  Dissenter,  and  shall  employ  those 
arguments  which  he  deems  conclusive  against  the  Episcopalian 
and  the  RomanCatholic.  Were  the  last  my  opponent,  I  should  use 
Mr.  E.'s  reasonings  against  him,  which  are  indeed  conclusive  ; 
and  then  should  advance  the  following  remarks,  which  would 
be  equally  conclusive  against  both,  on  the  subject  of  infant 
baptism. 

The  Protestant,  in  reasoning  with  a  Papist  or  Episcopalian  on 
the  unscriptural  practice  of  administering  the  supper  to  any 
individual,  as  such,  and  in  insisting,  that  it  ought  not  to  be 
given  to  sick  pcrsotts  in  their  chambers,  but  only  to  the  church, 
when  assembled  in  one  place  -f  in  proof  of  his  sentiment,  he 


S7 

advances  that  text  in  1  Cor.  xi.  where  the  apostle  delivers  the 
instruction  to  the  church,  that  when  met  together,  they  proceed 
to  commemorate  the  sufferings  of  their  Lord.  He  instances 
other  scriptures  to  the  same  effect ;  as,  the  saints  breaking 
bread  from  house  to  house,  Acts  ii.  46.  who  are  said  "  to  come 
together"  for  that  purpose,  1  Cor.  xi.  20.  Hence  the  supper  is 
culled  "  the  communion,"  1  Cor.  x.  16.  Some  are  said  to  be 
u  spots  in  their  feasts  of  charity,"  Jude  12.  He  states  also  that 
no  instance  is  given  of  the  administration  of  the  supper  to  any 
individual,  as  such,  in  the  divine  word.  Now,  we  admit  all 
this  reasoning  in  its  utmost  force,  and  with  our  Pcedobaptist 
brethren  firmly  believe,  that  the  supper  never  was  administered 
to  any  but  churches  assembled  together,  and  that  this  was  Paul's 
meaning  when  he  said  Christ  was  evidently  set  forth  as  cruci- 
fied among  the  Galatians,  Gal.  iii.  1.  This  could  not  have  been, 
if  they  were  not  in  a  collective  capacity ;  for  surely,  the  supper 
could  not  be  said  to  be  "  among"  one  person  only.  But  what 
does  all  this  go  to  prove  ?  Is  it  not  precisely  this,  that  of  what- 
soever materials  the  ancient  churches  were  constructed,  be  their 
members  who  they  might,  such  as  were  constituent  parts  of 
the  church,  in  common  with  the  rest,  partook  of  the  supper. 

Now  my  reasoning  is  this,  that  both  Baptists  and  Pcedobaptists 
do  agree,  that  whoever  belonged  to  the  ancient  gospel  churches, 
did  most  assuredly  partake  of  the  supper.  Here  then,  I  ground 
my  argument  and  proof,  that  females  were  most  unquestionably 
members  of  the  apostolic  churches  ;  and  if  this  can  be  done, 
indubitable  evidence  is  furnished,  and  such  as  our  adversaries 
have  already  granted,  that  females  have  such  a  right,  and  that 
founded  on  the  express  example  of  the  first  churches. 

Mr.  E.  would  object  to  this  as  mere  inference ;  but  it  certainly 
is  not,  unless  we  were  first  to  infer  their  membership,  and  then 
draw  a  second  inference  from  that  to  prove  their  right  to  the 
supper  ;  for  it  is  plain,  that  if  a  collective  participation  of  the 
supper  pertained  to  a  church,  as  such,  then  it  pertained  to  all 
the  churches  without  distinction ;  and  if  not  to  all,  then  certainly 
it  was  not  delivered  to  any,  as  a  church ;  so  that  the  Pcedobaptists 
are  fairly  forced  to  abandon  the  communion  of  churches,  or  else 
to  admit  this  reasoning.  But  why  doubt  this,  when  we  have 
three  instances  of  churches,  as  such,  communing  in  their  col- 
lective capacity ;  of  one  of  which  it  is  said  women  were  members  I 
The  first  alluded  to  is  the  church  of  Galatia,  Gal  iii.  1.  among 
whom  Christ  is  said  to  have  been  set  forth  ;  the  second  is  that 
of  Corinth,  who  were  said  to  be  assembled  for  the  very  purpose 
of  communing,  1  Cor.  xi.  ;  and  a  third,  that  of  Jerusalem,  who 
are  said  to  have  continued  stedfastly  in  the  apostles'  doctrine 
and  fellowship,  and  to  break  bread  from  house  to  house,  see 


53 

Acts  ii.  Is  it  not  evident  therefore  that  the  only  question  is, 
were  females  members  of  the  church  of  Christ ;  and  can  we 
prove  this  by  example  or  precept  ?  and  if  we  prove  it,  does  not 
Mr.  E.  vapour  about  female  communion  in  vain  ? 

I  prove  they  were  in  the  church,  first,  by  Acts  ii.  41.  "  They 
that  gladly  received  the  word  were  baptized — were  added  to 
them,"  [the  church]  all  of  them — verse  42.  "  they  continued 
stedfastly  in  the  apostles'  doctrine,  and  in  breaking  of  bread, 
and  prayer" — verse  44.  and  all  the  above  mentioned  persons 
44  had  all  things  common,"  that  is,  as  expressed  in  verse  45. 
44  Every  man  sold  his  possessions,  and  parted  them  to  all  men, 
as  every  man  had  need."  Now  notice,  the  every  man  last 
mentioned  is  confined  to  every  believing  man  of  their  commu- 
nity, and  not  every  man  in  the  most  extensive  sense  of  the  word ; 
and  it  must  also  be  remarked,  that  the  church  of  Jerusalem  is 
here  mentioned.  This  same  church  of  Jerusalem  is  afterward 
spoken  of  in  Acts  vi.  &c.  where  women  are  said  to  be  of  their 
body,  as  in  verse  1.  4t  The  Grecians  murmured  against  the 
Hebrews  because  their  widows  were  neglected  in  the  daily 
ministration."  These  following  things  from  hence  are  evident : 
First,  that  all  that  believed  were  added  to  the  church ;  secondly, 
that  all  these  had  every  worldly  good  thing  in  common ;  thirdly, 
that  all  these  did  commune  or  continue  in  breaking  of  bread 
and  in  prayers ;  fourthly,  that  females,  called  u  widows,"  shared 
a  part  of  what  all  were  said  to  have,  and  therefore  were  of  the 
number  of  the  church.  Our  opponents  must  be  reduced  to  the 
necessity  of  admitting  that  females  were  in  the  church  of  Jerusa- 
lem ;  and,  if  so,  what  must  follow,  but  that  the  supper,  being  a 
church  ordinance,  these  females  belonging  to  the  church,  did 
partake  ?  for  the  words  4C  every  one"  are  applied  to  them  in 
chap.  ii.  ver.  44.  and  they,  in  ver.  47.  are  called  the  church. 
To  strengthen  all  this,  collections  were  raised  for  these  very 
persons,  and  others  of  their  number,  by  the  name  of  the  "  poor 
saints  at  Jerusalem,"  Rom.  xv.  26.  and  1  Cor.  xvi.  1.  which 
entirely  cuts  off  the  supposition  that  these  were  the  mere  poor 
of  the  world. 

The  next  passage  is,  Rom.  xvi.  1.  "I  commend  Phoebe  our 
sister."  This  text  is  similar  to  many  others,  and  is  a  term 
denoting  church  relationship.  I  know  that  the  word  sister  is 
taken  sometimes  to  signify  a  natural  tie,  but  in  this  text  it  is 
otherwise  ;  and  it  is  remarkable,  that  this  very  person  is  in  the 
text  denominated  44  a  servant  of  the  church,"  and  in  verse  2. 
called  M  a  saint,"  which  was  doubtless  intended  to  distinguish 
from  mere  natural  connection.  That  this  is  the  sense,  will  fur- 
ther appear  from  1  Cor.  vi.  5 — 7.  where  those  called  u  brethren" 
are  said  to  be  of  the  church,  and  reproached  for  going  to  law 


59 

with  each  other ;  and  this  term  "  brother"  is  without  doubt 
applied  in  the  same  sense  as  "  sister"  in  the  former  passage, 
being  used  with  reference  to  church  relationship.  In  chap.  vii. 
a  husband  or  a  wife  is  called  "  brother"  and  M  sister  ;"  and  Paul 
asks,  "  Have  not  I  power  to  lead  about  a  wife  or  a  sister  V*  And 
to  shew  that  the  brethren  or  sisters  in  question,  were  considered 
so  only  as  they  were  in  the  churches,  he  adds,  in  this  seventh 
chapter,  verses  16. 1 7.  "  For  what  knowest  thou, O  wife,  whether 
thou  shalt  save  thy  husband  ?  or  how  knowest  thou,  O  man, 
whether  thou  shalt  save  thy  wife  ?  But  as  God  hath  distributed 
to  every  man,  as  the  Lord  hath  called  every  one,  so  let  him 
walk  :  and  so  ordain  I  in  all  the  churches"  How  remarkable  is 
this,  that  both  husband  and  wife  are  here  said  to  be  in  the  church, 
and  that  the  above  directions  respected  "  husbands  and  wives 
in  the  church,  and  that  this  church  is  held  up  as  a  pattern  for 
other  churches  !  and  what  is  still  more  to  the  point  is,  that  unto 
this  very  church  of  Corinth,  the  apostle  Paul  delivered  the 
supper !  see  1  Cor.  chap.  xi.  2.  "  Keep  the  ordinances,"  says 
he  "  as  I  delivered  them  to  you."  Not  ordinance,  but  ordinances, 
even  baptism  and  the  Lord's  supper  (for  there  were  but  two) 
and  these  they  were  desired  to  keep  just  as  they  were  delivered, 
without  alteration.  The  supper  was  delivered  to  this  very 
church — females  were  in  this  church,  and  to  husbands  and 
wives,  as  in  that  very  church,  are  these  directions  given.  Surely 
this  will  not  be  called  reasoning  by  inference  only  j  for  in  the 
address  to  this  very  church  of  Corinth,  Paul  says,  he  delivered 
to  them  the  supper,  and  that  when  collected  together ;  and  then, 
in  the  passages  above  quoted,  expressly  speaks  of  females 
belonging  to  it,  to  whom  he  gives  directions  about  marriage, 
and  then  declares  these  rules  were  for  other  churches  as  well  as 
for  them.  Will  our  opponents  now  say  we  have  no  M  express 
warrant — no  command — nor  yet  example:"  Surely,  ever}'  man 
will  see  there  are  both  in  this  last  cited  passage ;  and  if  so,  what 
becomes  of  all  the  noise  about  the  Baptists  admitting  females  to 
communion  without  warrant  ? 

There  are  some  other  passages  which  strengthen  the  above, 
to  prove  females  were  in  union  with  the  church  of  God,  and  in 
that  capacity  partook  of  the  supper.  By  directions  given  to 
females  in  the  churches,  and  to  some  concerning  them,  we 
prove  their  membership.  The  apostle  declares,  that  in  his 
instructions  how  the  christians  should  demean  themselves,  he 
confined  himself  to  the  church  ;  and  therefore  says  expressly, 
he  had  nothing  to  do  with  those  that  were  w  ithout,  see  1  Thes. 
iv.  12.  "  That  ye  may  walk  honestly  toward  them  that  are 
a  without  "  also  2  Cor.  xi.  28.  "  Beside  those  things  that  are 
without,  that  which  cometh  upon  me  daily,  the  care  of  all  the 


60 

churches  ;"  and  1  Cof.  v.  12,  13.  M  For  what  have  I  to  do  to 
judge  them  also  that  are  without!  do  not  ye  judge  them  that 
are  within  I  But  them  that  are  without,  God  judgeth.  There- 
fore put  away  from  among  yourselves  that  wicked  person.'* 
Xow  from  the  above  it  is  plain,  that  the  apostle  confines  himself 
to  the  duties  of  church  members  in  his  directions  as  to  deport- 
ment ;  and  if  so.  he  equally  gives  instructions  to  females,  to 
the  church  concerning  them,  and  to  the  ministers  presiding  ; 
for  it  would  be  the  height  of  absurdity  to  suppose  Paul  should 
make  it  the  dutv  oi  churches  to  regulate  the  conduct  of  females 
who  were  not  of  their  number,  or  of  ministers  to  restrict  female  s 
yet  unconverted  and  in  the  world,  as  to  marriage,  attire  and 
the  like. 

The  following  texts  incontrovertiblv  prove  that  females  were 
church  members,  and  as  such,  they  were  commanded  to  com- 
mune, as  you  see  1  Cor.  xi.  That  females  were  instructed  as 
above,  see  1  Tim.  v.  1. M  Rebuke  not  an  elder,  but  intreat  him  as 
a  father,  and  the  vounger  men  as  brethren;  the  elder  women  as 
mothers,  the  younger  as  sisters,  with  all  purity.''  Ver.  9.  M  Let 
not  a  widow  be  taken  into  the  number,  under  threescore  vears 
old."  Verse  11.  u  But  the  younger  -widows  refuse."  Verse  16. 
"  If  any  man  or  woman  that  believeth  have  widows,  let  diem 
relieve  them,  and  let  not  the  church  be  charged."  From  the 
above  we  see,  some  widows  were  to  be  received  among  the 
number  to  be  supported,  and  this  charge  was  to  fall  on  the 
church  ;  from  which  support  the  younger  widows  were  to  be 
excluded,  and  that  because  labouring  not  under  the  infirmities 
of  age,  thev  w  supposed  capable  of  supporting  themselves. 
To  apply  this  -easoning  to  all  widows,  whether  of  the  church 
or  not,  is  abs  ,  and  would  go  to  make  it  a  duty  in  the  church 
to  support  e-  ry  widow,  a  thing  utterly  impossible,  and  would 
effectually  relieve  the  public  of  the  charge,  and  burden  the 
churches,  so  that  thev  could  not  subsist.  So  also  Titus  ii.  2 — U 
M  That  the  aged  men  be  sober,  grave,  temperate,  sound  in  the 
faith,  in  chanty,  in  patience.  The  aged  women  likewise,  that 
they  be  in  behaviour  as  becometh  holiness,  not  false  accusers, 
not  given  to  much  wine,  teachers  of  good  things  ;  that  they  may- 
instruct  the  young  to  be  sober,  to  love  their  husbands, 
to  1c  ve  their  children." 

It  will  require  but  a  small  degree  of  candour  to  own,  that 
the  above  were  directions  to  females  as  members  of  the  church 
of  Christ,  who,  as  such,  are  ranked  with  elders,  old  men, 
young  men,  and  called  by  the  names  of  mothers  and  .sis' 

rst  descriptive  of  age,  the  last  of  cfeurch  relation.    I  there- 
fore consider  the  Doint  as  settled ;  but  shall  add  something  more 
ien  are  said  to  be  professors,  which  is  but 


another  term  for  church  membership,  1  Tim.  ii.  9.  10.  "  That 
women  adorn  themselves  in  modest  apparel,  with  shame  faced- 
ness  and  sobriety  ;  not  with  broidered  hair,  or  gold,  or  pearls, 
or  costly  array  ;  but  (which  becometh  women  professing  godli- 
ness) with  good  works."  That  women  were  in  the  churches, 
will  likewise  appear  from  1  Cor  xiv.  34.  where  they  are  pro- 
hibited from  teaching,  "  Let  your  women  keep  silence  in  the 
churches."  And  that  by  the  church  a  mere  place  of  worship  is 
not  meant,  will  appear  from  verse  23.  "  If  therefore  then-hole 
church  be  come  together  into  one  place,"  in  which  the  church 
is  manifestly  distinguished  from  the  place  of  meeting,  and 
women  said  to  be  in  the  church  ;  and  it  is  clear  members  are 
intended,  and  not  merely  persons  associating  as  a  congregation, 
because  in  the  chapter  at  large,  directions  are  given  to  members 
-in  general  possessing  gifts,  how  they  shall  use  them,  that  no 
confusion  might  ensue  :  but  then,  women  are  expressly  pro- 
hibited from  speaking,  because,  had  there  been  no  exception 
with  respect  to  them,  they  would  have  considered  themselves 
equally  included  in  the  directions.  But  if  the  women  in  question 
were  not  in  church  union,  such  a  prohibition  would  be  ridiculous, 
and  would  imply,  that  women  not  converts  to  Christianity  might 
possibly  claim  the  privilege  of  teaching  it. 

It  will  appear,  in  summing  up  what  has  been  advanced, 
that  the  points  kept  in  view  were,  1.  To  establish  the  scriptural 
sentiment,  that  females  were  in  the  churches ;  2,  That  they 
partook  of  the  Lord's  supper ;  3.  And  this,  not  because  they  were 
""  God's  creatures"  nor  because  they  were  capable  of  u  grace" 
nor  because  they  "  eat  of  the  Paschal  Lamb"  (which  were  the 
foolish  answers  Mr.  E.  put  into  the  mouth  of  a  Baptist  dispu- 
tant), but  because  they  were  found  in  the  first  gospel  churches  ; 
and,  4.  This  we  proved,  by  the  command  to  the  Corinthian 
church,  given  by  Paul,  to  keep  the  ordinances,  in  which  church 
there  were  actually  female  members  ;  and  also,  by  women  that 
were  widows  being  in  the  church  at  Jerusalem,  and  of  which 
church  also  it  is  said,  they  continued  stedfastlv  in  the  apostles' 
doctrine  and  fellowship,  and  in  breaking  of  bread,  and  in  p  ravers. 
The  sum  of  the  whole  is  this :  churches  communed  in  their 
collective  capacity ;  but  women  were  members  of  those  churches \ 
and  therefore  women  did  commune*  2.  Paul  delivered  the 
ordinances  to  certain  churches  ;  but  in  those  very  churches 
there  were  females  as  well  as  males  ;  therefore  to  females,  as 
well  as  to  males,  the  ordinances  were  delivered. 

Now,  in  this  plain  statement,  one  of  his  objections  is  taken 
away,  that  example  is  wanting  ;  for  we  heve  see  plainly,  that  the 
Baptists  d©  not  practice  without  example,  nor  is  it  in  the  paver 


of  all  the  sophistry  of  Mr.  E.  to  prove  otherwise.  If  he  demands 
from  us  a  positive  precept  for  the  practice,  he  has  that  also  in 
the  above.  In  that  eleventh  chapter  of  1  Cor.  verse  2.  it  is  said, 
44  Now  I  praise  you,  brethren,  that  you  remember  me  in  all 
things,  and  keep  the  ordinances,  as  I  delivered  them  to  you." 
And  in  verse  23,  u  For  I  have  received  of  the  Lord  that  which 
also  I  delivered  unto  you,  that  the  Lord  Jesus  the  same  night  in 
which  he  was  betrayed  took  bread :  and  when  he  had  given 
thanks,  he  break  it,  and  said,  take,  eat"  and  "  this  do"  Who- 
ever were  in  this  church,  these  precepts  were  delivered  to 
them  (for  precepts  they  cannot  be  denied  to  be),  and  that  women 
were  in  this  church,  I  have  proved  beyond  contradiction  ;  there- 
fore, females  did  actually  partake,  and  were  positively  com- 
manded so  to  do. 

Mr.  E.  will  however  cry  out, "  This  is  reasoning  by  inference," 
it  is  analogy,  a  thing  not  allowable  in  the  Antipcedobaptist. 
Although,  as  above  proved,  the  Baptists  have  never  denied 
this  mode  of  reasoning,  when  it  does  not  stand  alone  ;  or  when 
the  inferences  are  fair  and  natural,  or  drawn  from  proper 
premises  ;  yet  we  will  aver,  that  the  proofs  adduced  above,  are 
not  mere  inference.  Mr.  E.  in  page  15,  gives  a  definition  of 
what  he  calls  an  explicit  warrant.  Take  his  own  words  :  "  If," 
says  he,  u  a  question  be  started  concerning  the  meaning  of  a 
text,  let  it  be  1  Cor.  xi.  28.  the  reader  will  see  at  once  that  it  is 
no  explicit  word,  because  he  will  stand  in  need  of  a  third  thing, 
to  determine  in  what  sense  it  is  used  there ;  whereas,  if  the  word 
were  explicit,  nothing  else  would  be  necessary  to  fix  the  sense." 
Let  him  have  his  definition,  for  arguments  sake  (though  I  by  no 
means  agree  with  him)  yet  here  he  has  all  he  asks  for.  From 
what  was  advanced  before,  it  is  evident  females  were  church 
members,  and  they  are  known  to  have  been  so,  as  much  as 
believing  males.  Now,  to  the  church,  and  not  tc  a  part  of  them 
only,  was  this  ordinance  delivered.  If,  therefore,  the  command 
is  to  a  church,  as  such,  to  commune,  and  the  point  be  well 
established  that  such  church  was  composed  of  male  and  female 
members,  as  is  most  true  in  this  instance ;  then  the  moment  the 
command  is  given  to  such  a  church,  in  a  church  capacity,  so  to 
commune,  there  is  no  need  of  a  "  third  thing  to  fix  the  sense ;"  for 
every  one  knows  the  church  embraces  all  its  members,  and  that  a 
partis  not  the  church.  Then  the  matter  stands  thus :  The  apostles 
did  deliver  to  a  church  the  ordinances,  one  of  which  was  the 
supper.  In  this  delivery,  he  makes  no  distinction  between  its 
members,  commanding  some,  and  prohibiting  others ;  then 
females  were  in  membership,  and  must  of  necessity  understand 
this  of  themselves,  and  others  must  understand  it  of  them, 


6S 

because  their  membership  is  clear  and  certain.  Here  then,  is 
the  command — here  also  the  church  ;  where  then,  I  ask,  is  the 
third  thing  necessaiy  to  explain  it  ? 

Before  I  dismiss  this  point,  it  will  be  necessary  for  me  to 
notice  the  following  remark  of  Mr.  E.  in  page  32,  chapter  ii. 
on  arguments  in  favour  of  infant  baptism.  "  Infant  baptism," 
says  he,  "  is  to  be  proved,  in  the  same  way  as  female  com- 
munion." Is  it,  indeed,  sir,  to  be  proved  in  the  same  way? 
We  are  happy  to  hear  this  from  you.  Now,  reader,  remark,  if 
it  be  to  be  u  proved  in  the  same  manner,"  which  is  true  indeed, 
if  ever  proved  ;  then  example  from  the  New  Testament,  and 
also  positive  precept,  derived  from  the  same  source,  are  abso- 
lutely requisite.  It  is  not  true,  as  asserted  by  Mr.  E.  that  it 
must  be  proved  "  by  inference  and  analogy  only"  But  what  a 
sad  situation  is  this  gentleman  reduced  to !  he  has  declared, 
infant  baptism  must  be  supported  in  the  same  way  as  female 
communion.  In  relation  to  the  latter,  we  have  brought  command 
and  example — we  have  shewn  that  females  were  in  the  church, 
were  said  to  be  saints,  sisters,  servants  of  the  church,  believers, 
&c.  Well,  Mr.  E.  where  are  the  texts  you  are  to  produce  to 
make  it  appear  that  infants  were  in  the  church  ?  Where  are  the 
the  examples — the  command?  Where  called  sisters,  or  brothers, 
servants  of  the  church  I  Where  are  they  told  when  to  speak  and 
when  not  ?  Where  called  believers  ?  We  understand  you,  sir, 
perfectly.  You  hoped  the  Baptists  would  receive  your  dog- 
mas, and  bold  assertions,  and  take  it  for  granted,  indeed,  that 
there  is  neither  command  nor  example,  and  would  be  reduced 
to  the  necessity  of  proving  female  communion  by  analogy  and 
inference  only  ;  and  then,  to  be  sure,  you  would  couple  infant 
baptism  with  it,  and  make  them  stand  or  fall  together.  But; 
sir,  we  take  you  up  at  your  offer,  and  now,  on  our  part,  demand 
such  proof  for  infant  baptism  as  we  have  advanced  for  female 
communion.  Candid  reader,  must  not  Mr.  E.  have  been  desti* 
tute  of  shame,  or  wilfully  ignorant,  when  he  had  the  audacity 
to  declare,  in  the  face  of  an  enlightened  public,  that  there  is  as 
much  New  Testament  proof  in  favour  of  infant  baptism  and 
church  membership,  as  th2re  is  in  favour  of  female  communion  I 

The  indelicacy  with  which  Mr.  E.  has  treated  Mr*  Booth, 
is  scarcely  to  be  pardoned  ;  and  if  there  were  no  other  reasons 
this  would  be  sufficient,  that  the  gentleman  he  abuses  was  by 
no  means  a  scurrilous  writer  ;  neither  was  he  Mr.  E.'s  oppo- 
nent, or  we  might  have  attributed  his  dislike  to  having  been 
mortified  by  a  refutation  from  his  pen.  But  Mr.  Booth  had 
written  largely  on  the  subject,  and  contended  with  complete; 
success  against  the  most  learned  and  acute  adversaries  :  and  as 
Edwards  expected  to  be  dragged  into  public  view  by  that 


64 

laborious  and  enlightened  man,  his  object  seems  to  have  been 
to  intimidate  him  by  vulgarity  and  abusive  language.  One  half 
of  his  book  is  made  up  of  a  misrepresentation  of"  that  gentleman, 
tcon;erning  an  explicit  warrant  for  female  communion  :  It  shall 
now  be  my  business  to  expose  his  dissimulation.  His  quotation 
of  Mr.  Booth  is  page  12.  "  Does  not  the  term  Anthropos,  there 
used,"  (that  is,  in  1  Cor.  xi.  28.)  u  often  stand  as  a  name  of  our 
species,  without  regard  to  sex  ?"  He  then,  with  a  view  of 
making  Mr.  Booth  appear  ridiculous,  quotes  another  mutilated 
paragraph  thus :  "  Have  we  not  the  authority  of  lexicographers, 
and,  which  is  incomparably  more,  the  sanction  of  common  sense, 
for  understanding  it  thus  in  that  passage  V  He  then,  with  a 
view  of  making  him  appear  far  beneath  his  character,  and  true 
worth,  thus  replies  :  u  How  does  he  [Booth]  know  it  ?  Why, 
he  has  two  evidences  of  this  ;  a  lexicographer,  that  is,  a 
dictionary-maker,  and  common  sense.  Common  sense,  he  says, 
is  the  best  of  the  two."  I  would  now  ask  the  gentleman,  in 
turn,  is  this  all  that  Mr.  Booth  says  in  proof  of  his  position, 
that  Anthropos  is  a  name  for  our  species,  without  regard  to 
sex  ?  Has  he  said  no  more,  than  that  a  dictionary -maker  and 
common  sense  were  on  his  side  ?  Are  you  not,  Mr.  E.  guilty  of 
falsehood  in  this  ?  Keeping  back  part  of  a  narrative,  which  tends 
to  make  it  speak  falsely,  is  certainly  a  species  of  guilty  deception 
in  the  party  that  does  so  with  design.  Mr.  Booth  has  furnished 
-abundant  proof  of  his  position  from  the  book  of  God.  Why, 
then,  did  you  exhibit  this  very  imperfect  and  mutilated  account 
of  him  j  and  why  did  you  not  furnish  his  reasons  entire,  or  at 
least  the  strongest  of  them  ?  Sir,  your  views  are  but  too  well 
seen  ;  you  were  sensible,  that  to  meet  Mr.  Booth  fairly,  would 
be  to  expose  your  own  weakness  :  but  how  wicked  is  it  to  use 
the  devil's  weapons  of  slander  and  misrepresentation,  in  what 
you  would  have  us  believe  to  be  the  service  of  God.  Will  God 
thank  you,  sir,  for  this  ?  And  does  truth  need  misrepresentation 
in  its  defence  ? 

Remember,  ere  you  rave  again 
Against  sincere  and  pious  men, 
.And  ridicule  a  gospel  rite, 
That  GOD  peruses  all  yoa  write. 

Mr.  Booth  says  truly,  that  the  word  Anthropos,  when  used 
in  scripture,  where  there  is  no  distinction  of  sex,  is  a  name  of 
our  species.  Remark,  M  zvhere  there  is  no  distinction  of  sex"  it 
is  so.  He  never  would  have  denied,  nor  did  he  ever  deny,  that 
where  the  sexes  were  distinguished  and  opposed  to  each  other, 
that  the  word  "  Anthropos'''  was  sometimes  applied  to  the  male. 
But  then,  Mr.  Booth  would  with  equal  propriety  assert,  that 
this  same  word  Anthropos,  (man)  is  also  applied  to  the  female, 


65 

when  distinguished  from  the  male.  What  has  Mr.  E.  gained 
by  his  criticism  i  He  has  indeed  proved,  in  nineteen  instances, 
that  the  word  Anthvopos  means  the  male  as  distinguished  from 
the  female  ;  but,  in  doing  this,  he  has  done  no  more  than  what 
Mr.  B.  grants ;  and,  after  all,  he  has  not  touched  Mr.  B.'s 
argument.  But  if  he  had  accomplished  any  thing  to  purpose, 
he  ought  to  have  proved,  1.  That  the  word  Anthropos  is  never 
used  as  a  name  for  our  species,  when  the  sexes  are  not  distin- 
guished and  opposed  to  each  other,  2.  That  the  word  is  always 
applied  to  the  male,  when  distinguished  from  the  other  sex.  3. 
That  the  word  is  never  applied  to  the  female,  when  distinguished 
from  the  male. 

Examine,  brethren,  for  yourselves,  the  nineteen  instances  he 
brings  forward,  in  page  14,  and  what  does  he  prove,  more  than 
this  very  thing,  which  we  shall  allow  without  hesitation  j  that 
where  the  male  is  distinguished  from  the  female,  in  some 
instances,  he  is  called  Anthropos,  or  man  ?  But  has  he  attempted 
to  prove  the  other  two  propositions  ;  That  this  word  is  never 
used  as  a  name  of  our  species,  when  the  sexes  are  not  distin- 
guished from,  and  opposed  to  each  other?  Or,  that  the  word 
Anthropos  is  never  applied  to  the  female  ?  No,  no,  not  a  word 
of  this  ;  he  could  not  have  done  it ;  and  to  have  attempted  it, 
would  have  been  the  ruin  of  his  whole  book,  and  would  have 
deprived  him  of  an  opportunity  to  abuse  Mr.  B.  The  truth  of 
the  matter  is,  that  the  word  Anthropos,  is  used  in  all  the  three 
senses.  It  sometimes  meaning  the  male  as  distinguished  from, 
and  opposed  to  the  female  ;  sometimes  the  female,  as  distin- 
guished from,  and  opposed  to,  the  male  ;  and,  at  other  times, 
it  is  used  as  a  word  denoting  our  species,  where  neither  sex  is 
spoken  of,  so  as  to  be  distinguished  from  each  other,  but  equally 
takes  in  both  of  them. 

You  will  observe,  we  grant  all  Mr.  E.  says  about  the  word 
Anthropos:  but  our  present  business  will  be,  to  shew  that  the 
same  word  is  applied  to  the  female,  and  then  that  it  is  also 
applied  to  our  species,  where  the  sexes  are  not  distinguished 
from  each  other  ;  when  this  is  done,  you  will  readily  see  where 
the  victory  lies,  whether  with  the  Baptists,  or  Mr.  E. 

That  this  word  Anthropos  is  applied  to  the  female,  as  well  as 
the  male,  take  the  following  instances  :  Gen.  i.  26.  "  And  God 
said,  Let  us  make  man  in  our  image,  after  our  likeness  :  and 
let  them  have  dominion  over  the  fish  of  the  sea,  and  over  the 
fowl  of  the  air,  and  over  all  the  earth."  In  this  text,  the  word 
man  is  used  in  the  singular  number,  and  afterward  the  plural  pro- 
noun between  them,  explains  the  sense  of  it.  So  Gen.  1. 27.  "  So 
God  created  man  in  his  own  image,  in  the  image  of  God  created 
he  him:  male  and  female  created  he  them  ;"  here  as  in  the 


66' 

cither,  the  word  man  is  applied  to  both  male  and  female.  In 
Rom.  v.  12.  this  is  set  in  a  still  clearer  view,  if  possible,  u  By 
one  man  sin  entered  into  the  world,  and  death  by  sin."  It  is 
well  known,  that  the  woman  was  first  in  the  transgression,  and 
not  ihe  man  ;  so  that  she  indeed  brought  death  into  the  world  as 
well  as  sin ;  yet  here  the  woman  is  called  "  Anthropos"  or  man. 

But  I  am  indebted  to  Mr.  Butterworth  for  one  evidence  of 
the  female  being  called  u  Anthropos"  which  ought  effectually 
to  silence  all  opposers  ;  the  word  is  applied  to  our  Lord  Jesus, 
he  is  called  the  Son  of  Man,  Here  there  can  be  no  deception, 
it  is  evident  the  female  is  called  man  as  well  as  the  male,  for 
Jesus  had  a  miraculous  birth,  and  was  the  son  of  Mary  only  : 
and  yet  she  is  called  man,  and  he  her  son.  I  have  taken  the 
trouble  to  search  how  often  the  phrase  Son  of  Man,  occurs  in 
the  New  Testament,  and  find  it  is  so  used  in  forty-four  places. 
These  passages,  surely,  must  give  to  the  cheek  of  Mr.  E.  the 
tint  of  shame,  especially  as  he  affected  so  much  gaiety,  and 
made  himself  so  very  merry  at  Mr.  Booth's  expence  ;  and  the 
more  so  when  it  is  considered,  that  all  his  illiberal  remarks 
concerning  his  w  ignorance"  did  but  eventually  expose  his  own. 

There  are  also  texts  without  number  to  be  produced,  wherein 
this  word  is  obviously  used,  as  Mr.  B.  stated,  as  a  name  of  our 
species.  You  will  bear  in  mind,  brethren,  that  Mr.  E.  does 
attempt  to  make  it  appear,  that  Anthropos  is  not  a  Word  used 
as  the  name  of  our  species,  but  that  it  means  on**  of  the  sexes  as 
opposed  to  the  other,  the  male  as  distinguished  from  the  female ; 
and  he  insinuates  that  it  is  always  so  understood  when  it  occurs 
in  scripture,  or  at  least,  his  wish  is  to  make  us  believe,  that 
where  the  sexes  are  not  distinguished  and  opposed  to  each 
other,  the  word  Anthropos  does  not  necessarily  include  both 
sexes,  but  is  equivocal  in  its  meaning,  and  may  even  then  apply 
to  the  male  only.  Mr.  E.  produced  nineteen  instances  where 
the  word  meant  the  male  only,  and  we  have  produced  more 
than  double  the  number,  in  which  it  intends  the  female  only,  and 
wrhere  the  male  is  left  wholly  out  of  sight.  Surely,  if  this  word 
is  applied  to  both  sexes,  and  that,  even  when  opposed  to  each 
other,  it  must,  as  Mr.  B.  says,  be  a  name  for  our  species.  But 
you  will  see  in  the  texts  that  follow,  the  word  Anthropos  used 
in  the  very  sense  Mr.  B.  describes  it,  that  is,  as  a  name  for  our 
species,  and  wherein  the  sexes  are  not  distinguished  one  from 
another  ;  and  these  texts  must  manifestly  include  the  male  and 
female,  or  they  would  be  perfectly  unintelligible,  or  teach  dec- 
trine  hostile  to  the  attributes  of  God.  Some  of  them  shall  be 
given  at  large,  in  order  to  shew  this  must  be  the  sense  ;  and  the 
rest  shall  just  be  referred  to,  as  to  chapter  and  verse.  Gen.  vi. 
o.  "  And  the  Lord  said,  My  Spirit  shall  not  always  strive  with 


man"  This  declaration  cannot  be  considered  as  restricted  to 
the  male  only,  or  it  would  imply,  that  the  Spirit  would  always 
strive  with  the  female,  though  not  the  male,  which  is  absurd. 
Gen  vi.  7.  M  And  the  Lord  said,  I  will  destroy  man  whom  I 
have  created  from  the  face  of  the  earth."  Here  the  female  was 
intended  as  much  as  the  male,  for  both  were  destroyed  ;  and 
yet,  no  sex  is  expressed.  Gen.  ix.  6.  "  Whoso  sheddeth  inan's 
blood,  by  man  shall  his  blood  be  shed."  If  the  female  were  not 
included  here,  the  text  would  go  to  exonerate  the  female  mur- 
derer, and  only  make  the  male  liable  to  punishment  for  the 
crime  ;  yet,  here  neither  sex  is  distinguished,  but  both  are 
implied.  Exod.  xxxiii.  10.  u  And  all  the  people  saw  the  cloudy 
pillar  stand  at  the  tabernacle  door  ;  and  all  the  people  rose  up 
and  worshipped  ;  every  man  in  his  tent  door."  Here  all  the 
people  are  said  to  have  seen  the  pillar — all  the  people  are  said 
to  worship,  and  are  called  man ;  that  is,  all  the  people  were  so 
called.  Were  there  no  females  among  all  the  people  ?  Lev. 
xviii.  5.  u  Ye  shall  therefore  keep  my  statutes  and  my  judg- 
ments :  which,  if  a  man  do,  he  shall  live  in  them."  Does  this 
mean  only  the  male  ;  shall  he  only  live  in  keeping  the  law  I  yet 
no  sex  is  here  mentioned.  Deut.  iv.  32.  u  Since  the  day  that 
God  created  man  upon  the  earth."  W^hat !  did  he  not  create 
the  female  also  ?  Deut.  viii.  3.  "  Know  that  man  doth  not  live 
by  bread  only>  but  by  every  word  that  proceedeth  out  of  the 
mouth  of  the  Lord  doth  man  live."  Are  the  male  sex  here  only 
intended,  and  do  not  the  females  live  also  by  the  word  of  the 
Lord  ?  yet  here  there  is  no  distinction  of  sex.  "  Deut.  xxvii. 
15.  "  Cursed  be  the  man  that  maketh  any  graven,  or  molten 
image."  Does  the  text  intend  that  male  idolators  only  are 
cursed,  and  that  female  idolators  will  be  excused  ?  yet  here 
-there  is  no  distinction  of  sex.  I  shall  now  give  a  few  from  the 
New  Testament,  lest  it  should  be  thought,  that  the  phrase  ma»9 
•used  as  a  word  to  distinguish  our  species,  was  only  peculiar  to 
the  Hebrew  text.  Matth.  iv.  4.  "  Man  shall  not  live  by  bread 
alone."  Matth.  xii.  45.  "  Then  goeth  he  and  taketh  with  him 
seven  other  spirits  more  wicked  than  himself,  and  they  enter  in 
and  dwell  there :  and  the  last  state  of  that  man  is  worse  than  the 
first."  Does  all  this  only  apply  to  a  male,  or  is  a  femaie  also  as 
wretched  in  similar  circumstances ;  is  not  the  one  intended  as  well 
as  the  other  I  yet  here  is  no  distinction  of  sex.  Matth.  xii.  35. 
*'  A  good  man  out  of  the  good  treasure  of  his  heart,  bringeth 
forth  good  things  :  and  an  vil  man,  out  of  the  evil  treasure, 
bringeth  forth  evil  things."  Do  not  the  good  or  bad  actions 
of  a  female  also  proceed  from  the  same  source  ?  yet  no  sex  ig 
•distinguished  here,  though  both  is  manifestly  implied.  Rom. 
:*  23,     "  They  changed  the  glory  of  the  incorruptible  God  int«. 


68 

ati  image  made  like  to  corruptible  7nan.,i  Certainly  a  gentleman. 
so  very  learned  as  Mr.  E.  must  have  known,  that  the  heathen 
made  their  gods  in  the  likeness  of  corruptible  woman,  as  well 
as  man.  He  could  not,  I  should  suppose,  have  gotten  so  much 
Greek  as  his  book  exhibits, into  his  head,  without  some  acquain- 
tance with  Juno,  Minerva,  and  a  thousand  more. 

You  will  readily  perceive,  brethren,  that  in  all  these  texts, 
the  word  Anthropos  is  used  not  with  reference  to  the  male  only, 
but  also  the  female  ;  and  yet,  at  the  same  time,  the  sexes  are 
not  distinguished  and  opposed  to  each  other.  Now  this  is 
precisely  the  thing  for  which  Mr.  Booth  contended,  and  on  the 
account  of  which  Mr.  E.  lavished  such  ungentlemanly  abuse 
gn  him  ;  yet  it  is  evident  from  the  above,  that  Mr.  B.  was  right, 
and  his  opponent  entirely  wrong. 

Lest  the  reader  should  be  terrified  at  the  nineteen  instances 
produced  by  Mr.  E.,as  opposed  to  the  texts  to  be  found  on  the 
side  of  Mr.  B.,  I  shall  now  subjoin  a  great  number,  all  of  which 
must  be  taken  as  those  above  mentioned  j  or  if  not,  they  have 
no  meaning  at  all,  or  are  perfect  nonsense.  In  all  these  following 
texts,  as  well  as  those  already  recited,  the  word  man  occurs  ; 
and  in  not  one  of  them  can  it  be  applied  exclusively  to  the  male, 
but  must  equally  mean  the  female. 

The  number  of  texts  quoted,  are  not  to  make  an  ostentatious 
show,  nor  yet  to  swell  the  size  of  the  book :  but  as  our  wondrous 
Greek  scholar,  Mr.  E.  lays  more  stress  on  his  criticism  on  the 
Word  Anthropos,  than  any  other  thing  advanced,  and  really  builds 
one  half  of  his  book  on  it  at  least,  there  seems  to  be  the  greater 
necessity  to  shew,  that  the  whole  current  of  scripture  is  against 
him.  See  then,  these  following  passages:  Exod.  xxxiii.  11. 
Deut.  iv.  32.  viii.  3.  xxvii.  15.  Judges  ix.  12.  1  Sam.  xv.  29. 
1  Chron.  xxix.  1.  Job  ii.  4.  vii.  1 — 17.  xxxiii.  14,  15,  16,  IT. 
Psalm  viii.  4.  xlix.  12.  lxxxix.  49.  ciii.  15.  civ.  14,  15.  23.  xx, 
27.  Eccle.  vii.  29.  xii.  13.  Isaiah  vi.  12.  Job  x.  23.  xvii.  5. 
xvii.  7.  Ezek.  xx.  11.  Hosea  xi.  9.  Micah  vi.  8.  Malachi  ii. 
12.  iii.  8.  Mark  ii.  27.  John  i.  4.  ii.  25.  iii.  4.  vii.  51.  Rom.  i. 
23.  iii.  4.  ix.  20.  1  Cor.  ii.  14.  Col.  ii.  8.  Titus  ii.  20.  iii.  8 — 10. 
1  Peter  i.  24.  Rev.  ix.  4,  5,  6.  10 — 18. 

Does  Mr.  E.  say,  the  word  Anthropos  sometimes  means  the 
male  only  ?  Granted.  But  does  he  mean,  that  the  word  Anthropos. 
akvays  signifies  the  male  as  opposed  to  the  female  ?  This  is  not 
granted  ;  for  I  have  already  proved,  that  the  same  word  is 
applied  to  the  female  in  more  than  fifty  instances,  and  that  where 
the  male  was  entirely  excluded.  But  does  he  mean  to  say  that 
the  word  Anthropos,  where  it  occurs  without  expressing  either 
of  the  sexes,  does  not  necessarily  include  both,  and  is  not  a  word 
t?  ditfingy&sh  our  species?  This,  also,  is  not  granted;  for  I  have 


69 

shewn,  that  in  more  than  eighty  texts,  and  eighty  more  if 
necessary  can  be  produced,  the  word  mail  must  include  both 
male  and  female,  of  necessity,  and  that  without  either  being 
■expressed  ;  and  therefore  must  be  a  name  for  our  species, 
without  regard  to  sex. 

Now  let  us  see  how  Mr.  E.  can  manage  the  text  quoted  by 
Mr.  B.  1  Cor.  xi.  28.  We  will  imitate  him  in  his  colloquial 
uiode  of  arguing. 

c  Mr.  E.  Whence,  Mr.  Booth,  do  you  obtain  your  express 
warrant,  in  order  to  justify  the  practice  of  female  communion ; 
what  scripture  can  you  bring?  remember,  you  Baptists  say, 
•every  ordinance  appointed  by  God  must  have  positive  precept, 
or  plain  example. 

B.  I  take  it  from  that  text,  among  others,  1  Cor.  xi.  28. 
*"  Let  (Anthropos)  a  man  examine  himself,  and  so  let  him  eat." 

E.  That  is  not  an  express  warrant,  for  this  word  Anthropos 
is  applied  to  the  male,  when  opposed  to  the  female  ;  witness  the 
nineteen  texts. 

B.  Granted  ;  it  is  so  applied :  but  then  the  female,  when 
opposed  to  the  male,  is  also  called  by  the  same  word,  and  that 
in  more  than  fifty  texts* 

E.  It  is  indeed  true,  that  the  female  is  called  Anthropos^ 
(man)  as  well  as  the  male :  but  how  will  you  prove  that  the 
female,  and  not  the  male,  was  intended  by  the  apostle  here  ; 
for,  an  express  proof  must  have  nothing  equivocal  in  it,  and  the 
person  must  be  named  therein  ? 

B.  I  prove  it  thus:  That  although  this  word  Anthropos  is 
applied  to  both  sexes  indiscriminately,  when  opposed  to  each 
other,  and  which  of  itself  would  be  sufficient  to  shew,  that  both 
male  and  female  were  intended  ;  yet  I  do  not  rely  wholly  on 
that :  but  this  same  word  Anthropos  is  used  to  distinguish  our 
species,  without  regard  to  sex ;  and  is  so  used  where  neither 
sex  is  distinguished  or  opposed,  but  where  both  at  the  same 
time  are  manifestly  included,  and  this  is  precisely  the  case  with 
the  text  in  question. 

E.  Can  you  indeed  prove,  that  this  word  man  is  not  only 
applied  to  the  sexes  indiscriminately,  when  opposed  to  each, 
other,  but  also  to  both  the  sexes  as  included  in  the  one  word 
Anthropos,  where  there  is  no  opposition  or  distinction  ?  If  so, 
this  text  is  indeed  positive,  and  the  point  must  be  conceded. 

B.  This,  sir,  can  be  done  with  ease  ;  and  I  now  present  you 
with  more  than  eighty  texts  where  the  word  is  so  used :  See 
here  they  are. 

It  may  not  be  amiss  to  enquire,  whether  or  not  this  text,  on 
the  principles  above  mentioned,  will  conform  to  Mr.  E.'s  views 
ol  what  constitutes  express,  or  explicit  warrant.     His  views 


ro 

are,  that  a  text  ought  to  have  that  within  itself  which  fixes  its 
meaning.  I  am  fully  persuaded  his  criterion  is  not  proper, 
because  our  acquaintance  with  scripture  does  not  arise  from  one 
text  only,  but  from  a  great  variety  of  them ;  yet  each  expressing 
the  same  meaning,  and  serving  to  strengthen  each  other,  and 
fix  and  confirm  the  sense  of  *  all.  We  are  to  compare  spiritual 
things  with  spiritual.  Yet,  rigid  as  this  rule  of  Mr.  E.'s  is,  and 
though  it  was  so  constructed  by  him,  as  an  artifice  to  deprive 
us  of  what  are  really  express  proofs  ;  still  I  am  confident  thifc 
text  will  bear  the  ordeal  of  his  test — thus  : 

E.  You  require  explicit  proof  for  the  sprinkling  of  children  ; 
I,  in  like  manner,  demand  express  proof  for  female  communion. 

B.  I  do  indeed  require  such  proof,  in  the  case  you  mention^ 
and  I  will  furnish  the  proof  for  female  communion  you  ask. 
You  have  it  1  Cor.  xi.  28.  U  Let  a  man  examine  himself,  aud 
so  let  him  eat." 

E.  This  is  no  proof  at  all,  much  less  is  it  express  proof;  for 
Anthropos  (man)  is  applied  to  the  male  as  distinct  from,  and  as 
opposed  to,  the  female. 

B.  I  beg  your  pardon,  sir.  That  it  is  applied  to  males  in  the 
manner  you  have  said  is  not  denied  by  me ;  but  it  is  also  applied 
to  females  as  opposed  to  males  ;  and,  therefore,  is  proof  in 
point. 

E.  Although  it  may  be  proof,  it  is  not  express  proof  ;  for 
what  is  express  proof,  carries  its  own  meaning  in  it,  without 
recurring  to  foreign  aid  ;  and  as  you  have  granted  Anthropos 
(man)  is  applied  to  each  sex,  at  times  when  opposed  to  each 
other,  how  do  you  know  whether  the  male  or  female  is  intended 
here  ? 

B.  My  proof  is  this,  that  the  word  Anthropos,  where  it  is 
found  in  texts  which  say  nothing  about  sex,  and  which  conse- 
quently do  not  distinguish,  and  oppose  one  to  another  ;  in  that 
case,  both  sexes  are  included.  Now,  in  this  text  I  quoted,  there 
|s  no  opposition  of  sexes,  nor  distinguishing  one  from  the  other  j 
yet  here  the  word  Anthropos  is.  Now,  if  what  I  have  said  is 
true^  that  Anthropos  in  such  cases,  does  thus  include  both  sexes, 
then  this  text  comes  up  to  your  ideas  of  express  proof;  for  it 
enjoins  the  supper  on  both  sexes  equally,  after  due  examination ; 
the  meaning  prising  immediately  out  of  the  text. 

E.  Then  the  whole  turns  on  this,  whether  what  you  say  is4 
true,  that  this  word  Anthropos,  where  the  sexes  are  not  distin- 
guished and  opposed  to  each  other,  does  include  both  sexes 
therein.  If  it  does,  then  indeed  your  point  is  gained  ;  for  it  is 
\>\xt  fair  to  own,  that  there  is  nothing  that  distinguishes,  or 
opposes  the  sexes  one  to  another,  in  this  text.  But  I  demand 
proof,  that  th?  wovd  is  so  used  j$  you.  have  said.. 


n 

B.  The  proof,  sir,  is  at  hand  ;  and,  for  your  satisfaction,  I 
now  present  you  with  more  than  eighty  texts,  and  I  will  augment 
their  number  if  you  please,  where  it  is  impossible  to  understand 
it  otherwise,  and  where  both  are  certainly  included. — See  here 
they  are,  as  above. 

Mr.  E.  as  was  before  remarked,  insinuates,  that  Mr.  Booth 
had  offered  no  other  argument  in  favour  of  his  hypothesis  that 
Anthropos  included  both  sexes,  than  merely  the  authority  of 
lexicographers  and  common  sense.  This  he  did  with  a  view  to 
have  it  believed,  that  these  were  the  only  proofs,  or  at  least  the 
best,  that  could  be  advanced  by  the  Baptists.  The  fallacy  of 
such  an  insinuation  is  easily  discerned  from  the  above.  It  may, 
however,  readily  be  seen  what  his  views  were  in  these  remarks, 
that  they  were  intended  only  to  substitute  ridicule,  in  the  place 
of  reasoning,  and,  knowing  he  could  not  meet  the  argument 
fairly,  and  refute  it,  he  took  this  method  of  raising  a  laugh  to 
evade  it.  But  why  is  he  so  unfriendly  to  dictionary-makers, 
as  he  ludicrously  terms  them  ?  Was  it  because  it  is  unnecessary 
to  find  out  the  meaning  of  words  ?  Was  it  that  he  thought  an 
entire  ignorance  of  the  derivation  of  terms  would  best  suit  his 
purpose  of  imposing  on  his  credulous  readers,  and  that,  by  these 
means,  he  could  the  better  shield  himself  behind  their  ignorance  I 
Or,  was  he  afraid  to  trust  himself  in  their  hands,  lest  they 
should  entirely  ruin  his  book  ?  Do  not  be  alarmed,  sir,  at  the 
name  of  a  dictionary -maker  ;  there  are  few,  if  any  of  them. 
Baptists  ;  and,  surely,  if  the  Baptists  are  willing  to  trust  them- 
selves in  the  hands  of  their  Pcedobaptist  opponents,  you  need 
not  object  to  that.  The  concession  of  an  adversary  is  a  double 
confirmation  of  truth,  and  such  is  this  relative  to  dictionari;- 
makers.  But  this  is  the  first  time  I  ever  witnessed  such  a  thinp;, 
as  a  man  pretending  to  u  great  humility,  laborious  research  after 
truth,  and  putting  up  pious  prayers  (in  his  book)  to  God  to 
guide  him  in  the  research  ;"  and  yet,  in  a  little  while,  to  spurn 
at  aid,  even  from  his  friends,  and  obstinately  refuse  to  hear 
what  they  could  say. 

But  the  secret  is,  these  cruel  Pcedobaptist  dictionary-makers- 
gave  their  testimony  against  him;  and  surely  it  was  verv 
impolite  in  Mr.  Booth,  to  set  the  gentleman  a  quarrelling  with 
his  friends.  Why,  Mr.  Booth,  you  have  created  an  eternal 
enmity  between  these  gentlemen:  little  did  thev  think  you 
would  have  made  such  bad  use  of  their  writings,  as  to  emplov 
their  sword  against  their  very  good  friend.  You  must  now  be 
content  to  let  them  quarrel  about  the  meaning  of  the  word 
Anthropos y  and  if  they  should  never  be  on  speaking  terms 
again,  indeed,  sir,  it  is  your  fault ;  you  divulged  important 
secrets. 


72 

There  is  another  phrase  also,  which  has  given  our  sprinkling 
u  sensitive  plant"  no  little  concern;  and  I  suspect  the  causes  for 
it  are  the  same,  I  mean  the  word  u  common  sense."  Now, 
Mr.  Booth,  did  you,  indeed,  use  such  an  expression  ?  If  so,  no 
wonder  the  gentleman  felt  all  alive,  and  was  scarcely  able  to  tell 
whether  his  head  was  in  the  moon,  or  out  of  it.  "  Common 
sense"  seems  to  have  tinkled  on  his  imagination,  like  Whitting- 
ton's  bells.  Your  address,  it  would  seem,  was  personal,  and 
would  admit  of  but  two  applications.  One  is,  that  Mr.  E.  had 
no  common  sense,  and  therefore  rejected  your  argument ;  the 
other,  that  his  sense  was  so  refined,  so  uncommon,  that  he  soared 
so  much  above  his  fellow  ministers  in  point  of  erudition^  and 
his  contemplations  were  so  sublimated,  that  he  had  no  ear  to 
hear  a  Baptist  reason*  Now*,  sir,  if  he  supposed  you  meant  the 
first,  what  was  it  but  saying  that  the  intellects  of  Mr.  E.  were 
much  Weakened,  and  that  his  capacity  was  so  shallow,  that  he 
was  incapable  of  reasoning  on  a  subject  plain  to  the  meanest 
capacity  ?  Can  you  wonder,  then,  that  he  was  so  angry  ? 
No  man  would  wish  to  be  called  a  fool.  Ah,  sir,  you  should 
have  been  present ;  you  should  have  seen  how  his  choler  was 
moved,  when  he  read  that  word,  common  sense ;  you  should 
have  heard  how  he  muttered, 4  Common  sense !  common  sense  ! 
Why,  what  does  the  man  mean  ;  does  he  intend  to  convey 
the  idea  that  I  am  a  fool  V  But,  sir,  /  am  inclined  to  think 
that  you  meant  it  in  the  best  sense,  knowing  your  extreme 
goodness  and  how  unwilling  you  are  to  offend  ;  and  if  so,  your 
opinion  was  truly  flattering  to  the  gentleman :  it  was  equivalent 
with  saying,  that  his  ideas  were  so  elevated,  that  he  could  not 
stoop  to  receive  common  definitions  of  the  word  Anthropos  ; 
but  he  would  put  a  better  sense  on  it — a  loftier  one ;  and,  as  to 
"  common  sense,"  that  should  surely  have  its  brains  dashed 
out.  Come,  now,  ye  dictionary-makers,  ye  lexicographers, — 
come  learn  in  future,  at  the  mouth  of  this  wondrous  scribe ; 
— away  with  your  common  sense  ; — this  man  is  above  vulgar 
opinion,  he  is  resolved  never  to  go  with  the  multitude.  But 
still,  why  so  angry  with  c  common  sense  V  out  with  the  secret, 
sir, — let  us  have  the  whole  of  it — do  not  mumble  so  ;  we  shall 
not  take  it  ill  of  you.  Oh,  sir,  then  it  seems,  that,  according 
to  the  generally  received  opinion,  this  word  "  Anthropos"  is 
understood  to  mean  our  species  in  general,  where  the  sexes 
were  not  distinguished  and  opposed  ;  and  it  seems,  Mr.  B. 
took  advantage  of  this,  and  called  in  the  aid  of  common  sense  ! 
which  to  prevent  in  future,  it  was  settled  in  your  mind,  that  the 
villain  Common  Sense  should  be  knocked  in  the  head ;  or  at  least, 
laughed  to  death.  It  is  a  poor  cause  that  must  chase  Common 
Sense  from  her  seat  xvhen  it  asks  a  hearing. 


73 

EXAMINATION  OF  ARGUMENT  2.    CHAPTER  I. 

Mr.  E.  having  done  his  best,  on  the  subject  of  female  com- 
munion, now  attacks  what  he  calls,  the  w  other  half  of  the 
Baptist  strength  ;"  he  wishes  to  overthrow  the  sentiment,  that 
faith  and  repentance  are  required  of  every  subject  of  baptism. 
His  words  are,  page  20,  the  Baptists  say,  *  The  scriptures 
require  faith  and  repentance,  as  requisite  to  baptism  ;  but,  as 
infants  cannot  have  these,  they  are  not  proper  subjects  of  bap- 
tism. Infants,  say  the  Baptists,  cannot  believe,  cannot  repent; 
and  none  should  be  baptized  without  faith,"  &c.  We  are  not 
disposed  to  deny  any  part  of  the  above  quotation  ;  but  acknow- 
ledge it  to  contain  our  sentiment  fully  on  that  head  :  we  shall, 
therefore,  hear  how  Mr.  E.  can  overcome  this  reasoning.  The 
method  he  takes  to  get  over  this,  is  the  same  he  adopts  in  his 
theses  ;  that  is,  by  opposing  adults  to  infants,  and  by  making 
two  distinct  baptisms :  the  one,  as  the  right  of  infants,  the  other, 
as  the  duty  of  adults.  As  the  sophistry  of  this  arrangement 
was  sufficiently  exposed  in  my  animadversions  on  his  theses,  I 
might  be  *ully  excused  from  treading  the  ground  again  :  but,  as 
it  might  appear  to  a  common  reader,  that  our  silence  here  was 
evidence  of  defeat,  we  shall  indulge  the  gentleman  and  follow 
him  in  his  remarks.  His  words  are,  see  page  20,  "  They"  (the 
Baptists)  "  say  the  scriptures  require  faith  and  repentance  in 
order  to  baptism  ;"  (this  he  does  not  deny,  remark  that)  "  I 
ask,  from  whom  ?  The  answer  must  be,  of  adults  ;  for  the 
scriptures  never  require  them  of  infants,  in  order  to  any  thing." 
He  then  proceeds :  "  The  scriptures  require  faith  and  repentance 
of  adults,  in  order  to  baptism."  His  conclusion  from  these 
premises  is,  "  Now,  you  see,  infants  are  gone  j  they  have 
nothing  to  do  with  the  argument,  or  if  they  must  be  brought  in, 
the  argument  runs  thus  :  The  scriptures  require  faith  and 
repentance  of  adults,  in  order  to  baptism  ;  but  as  infants  cannot 
have  these,  they  are  unfit  subjects  of  this  ordinance." 

Now  all  this  sophistry  is  founded  on  one  word,  "  Adults"  as 
opposed  to  infants*  But  I  ask  you,  candid  reader,  where  did 
Mr.  E.  get  these  words  adults  and  infants  from  ;  and  where  did 
he  find  two  baptisms  commanded — one  the  right  of  infants,  the 
other  of  adults  ?  Did  you  ever  read  of  adult  baptism  in  the  New 
Testament  ?  Did  you  ever  read  of  infant  baptism  there,  or  of 
these  two,  as  opposed  to  each  other,  and  requiring  very  different 
qualifications  ?  You  very  well  know  there  are  no  such  words  in 
God's  book,  as  adult  baptism  and  infant  baptism  ;  and  if  so, 
whence  did  Mr.  E.  derive  them,  and  what  were  his  views  in 
inventing  them  ?  From  the  book  of  God,  it  is  doubtlessly- 
acknowledged  he  did  not  obtain  them  ;  or,  if  he  did,  let  him 


tell  us  from  what  part :  but  this  is  impossible  for  him  to  do. 
Then  himself,  or  his  brethren,  must  have  invented  them,  to 
answer  certain  purposes,  not  to  be  otherwise  accomplished.  If 
he  derived  them  from  the  word,  he  must  either  produce  us 
express  words,  or  what  is  equivalent ;  and  the  latter  would  be 
to  this  amount :  He  that  is  an  adult,  on  his  believing  and 
repeating,  and  then  being  baptized,  may  be  saved  :  but  he  that 
is  an  infant  may  be  baptized  without  either  ;  for  faith  and 
repentance  are  only  required  of  an  adult,  or  grown  up  person. 
I  ask  you  again,  reader,  have  you  ever  seen  any  thing  in  the 
whole  of  the  New  Testament  like  this  ?  Did  you  ever  witness 
-any  distinctions,  as  it  respects  agey  made  between  one  subject 
of  baptism  and  another  ?  or  have  you  ever  found  any  thing 
said  of  infants  about  baptism  at  all  ? 

An  adult  is  one  who  has  arrived  to  full  stature  of  boat;,  and 
also  of  understanding1  ;  or,  in  other  words,  one  who  has  grown 
up  to  a  man's  or  woman's  estate.  Then,  to  take  Mr.  E.  on  his 
own  statement,  it  would  be  this  ;  that  from  infancy  up  to  twenty, 
or  twenty-one  years  of  age,  (for  then  only  persons  are  thought 
to  be  mature,  and  scarcely  then)  every  such  person  is  to  be 
baptized,  without  either  faith  or  repentance,  and  that  because 
they  are  not  required  of  such  ;  but  ail  above  those  years,  must 
have  both  faith  and  repentance,  as  indispensible  pre-requisites. 
The  commission  was,  "  Go  ye  out  into  all  the  world,  preach 
the  gospel  to  every  creature  ;  he  that  believeth  and  is  baptized 
shall  be  saved  ;  but  he  that  believeth  not  shall  be  damned."  But, 
according  to  Mr.  E.  we  are  not  to  understand  this  commission 
to  respect  any  one  under  twenty  years ;  and  then  all  minors, 
though  they  believe  not,  may  be  baptized,  and  are  not  included 
in  the  threatening  of  damnation.  After  all,  we  ask,  where  is 
the  other  commission  relative  to  those  under  twenty,  and 
commanding  their  baptism? 

Who  is  prepared  to  receive  such  a  statement  ?  Yet,  if  we 
believe  Mr.  E.,  we  must  go  this  whole  length  with  him,  or  else 
the  word  adult  must  have  either  no  meaning  at  all,  or  a  very 
'liferent  one  from  what  it  is  considered  as  having.  But  let  us 
for  a  moment  recur  to  the  real  subjects  of  baptism,  mentioned 
in  the  divine  word  ;  then  all  difficulty  vanishes  at  once.  The 
qualifications  required  respect  not  age,  but  grace.  So  also,  as 
to  those  who  are  not  qualified  for  this  ordinance,  the  ground  of 
prohibition  is  not  infancy,  as  he  savs,  u  he  that  is  an  infant  shall 
not  C '  No,  but,  "  he  that  believeth  not,"  whatever  may  be  his 
age.  Should  scripture  warrant  be  asked  for,  this  we  hav  also 
at  hand :  "  If  thou  believest  with  all  thine  heart,  thou  mayest ;" 
the  having  of  this  faith,  being  made  the  qualification  for  baptism, 
and  the  not  having  it,  the  ground  of  refusal*    • 


75 

Mr.  £.  does  not  deny,  that  faith  and  repentance  are  required  ; 
but  he  says  it  must  be  from  "  adults"  We  again  repeat  the 
question,  where  is  such  a  requisition  made  as  to  adults  ;  are  we 
yet  to  continue  without  an  answer  ?  No  answer  is  to  be  found 
in  all  his  book.  His  reasons,  however,  for  his  opinion,  are  not, 
it  seems,  because  the  scriptures  favour  it:  but,  first,  because- 
infants  cannot  believe,  and  therefore  it  is  not  required  of  such  ; 
and,  secondly,  because  the  word  of  God  is  silent  concerning 
them,  as  to  this  point,  and  therefore  such  qualifications  cannoc 
be  required.  This  statement  has  for  its  foundation  the  assump- 
tion of  an  idea  which  is  not  true  ;  even  that  baptism  is  the  duty 
of  the  infant,  and  because  the  infant  cannot  possess  the  pre- 
requisites, it  is  to  be  baptized  without  them.  Is  not  this 
begging  the  question  in  dispute  ?  We  would  at  once  concede 
the  point,  were  it  proved  that  infants  ought  to  be  baptized ;  and 
in  such  cas^,  we  should  presume  God  made  no  such  requisition 
of  them,  but  of  adults  only:  but  it  will  be  time  enough  to 
draw  such  conclusions,  when  the  fact  is  established ;  until  thefc, 
nothing  is  done. 

This  argument  of  Mr.  E.  has  several  strange  aspects  :  First, 
infancy  is  made  a  reason  for  having  no  faith,  or  repentance  j 
then  the  want  of  these,  is  made  the  reason  why  infants  should 
not  have  them  ;  and,  to  crown  all,  infancy,  and  the  want  of  faith, 
are  produced  as  reasons  for  baptism.  It  would  be  easy  to  justify 
the  baptizing  of  unbelieving  adults  on  the  same  principles,  and 
the  reasons  assigned  by  Mr.  E.  in  the  one  case,  would  suit  full 
as  well  in  the  other.  The  argument  of  Mr.  E.  here  is,  the 
incapacity  of  infants  to  believe  and  repent ;  and  his  inference  is, 
that  therefore  they  being  incapable  of  it,  God  neither  does,  nor 
ought  to  require  it,  in  order  to  baptism  ;  and  then  the  inference 
is,  he  does  not.  The  adult  also,  labours  under  an  incapacity 
of  himself  to  believe,  though  that  incapacity  is  of  a  moral  nature  ; 
but  yet  this  is  a  preventive  as  effectual  as  if  he  laboured  under 
both  a  natural  and  moral  incapacity. 

But  what  would  be  thought,  were  I  to  say  with  Mr.  E.  faith 
and  repentance  are  required  for  baptism,  only  from  such  as  can 
exercise  them  ;  hence,  this  does  not  obstruct  an  adult,  though 
an  unbeliever,  because  he  has  no  power  to  believe  ;  and  God 
requires  faith  and  repentance,  in  order  to  baptism,  only  from 
such  as  can  believe  and  repent ;  now  these  requisitions  can  only 
apply  to  those  upon  whom  he  has  bestowed  the  grace  of  divine 
faith :  but,  as  the  sinner  may  say,  he  has  not  given  that  faith  to 
me,  and  I  cannot  exercise  what  I  have  not ;  of  course  the 
prohibition  cannot  extend  to  me,  and  I  may  be  baptized  without 
any  such  prerequisites. — On  Mr.  E/s  hypothesis,  how  would 
jhe  extricate  himself I 


76 

But  still  it  may  be  asked,  is  it  not  implied  that  baptism  is  to 
be  administered  to  the  infant?  and  if  so,  surely  it  is  reasonable 
to  think,  that  faith  and  repentance  pertain  to  adults  only,  for 
God  never  requires  impossibilities  ?  Now  as  these  are  with 
infants  impossible,  are  we  not  justified  in  the  classification  of 
the  subjects  of  baptism  into  adults  and  infants  ? 

I  think  this  is,  in  reality,  the  utmost  that  can  be  said,  as  a 
defence  of  such  classing  ;  and  though  Mr.  E.  has  not  conde- 
scended to  give  his  reasons  for  so  doing,  yet  sure  I  am,  had 
he  attempted  it,  not  a  passage  would  have  been  produced,  and 
all  he  could  say  in  its  defence,  would  be  found  in  the  short  sketch 
above.  This  classification  then,  at  last,  rests  upon  a  mere 
supposition,  that  infants  were  included  in  the  command  to  be 
baptized,  and  on  this  mistake  rests  the  whole.  There  is  no  doubt 
with  me,  if  such  had  been  the  intention  of  God,  with  respect  to 
infants,  that  this  method  of  opposing  adults  to  them,  would  be 
certainly  the  best  one,  and  a  justifiable  one  also.  But  then,  this 
was  not  the  case  with  Mr.  E. ;  he  laboured  under  no  mistake 
on  that  head ;  he  had  an  object  in  view,  and  that  was  the  support 
of  a  bad  cause,  and  possessed  sufficient  penetration  to  discover, 
that  this  cause  could  not  be  maintained  without  such  a  classifi- 
cation. It  may,  indeed  be  thought,  that  the  remark  is  an  illiberal 
one  ;  but  it  must  be  remembered,  that  Mr.  E.  has  not  met  his 
opponents  fairly  :  he  has  taken  every  advantage  of  them  in  his 
power — dealt  altogether  in  sophistry,  and  low  wit — and  dis- 
covered that  caution  through  his  whole  book,  that  indicated  the 
subtle  disputant^  rather  than  the  candid  divine,  who  is  seeking 
after  truth. 

The  reader  may,  however,  be  ready  to  ask,  if  it  be  granted 
that  no  scripture  can  be  produced  to  warrant  the  use  of  the 
words  "  adult"  and  M  infant"  in  determining  the  subjects  of 
baptism  ;  yet,  is  not  the  classification  harmless  in  itself  ?  I 
answer,  one  evil  arising  from  this  classification  is,  that  it  makes 
two  baptisms  instead  of  one,  of  which  the  word  of  God  is  entirely 
silent ;  and  is  it  no  harm  to  add  to  the  divine  word  ?  Can  it  be 
right  to  say,  there  is  one  baptism  for  infants,  which  requires 
no  qualifications,  but  those  merely  accidental  (having  believing 
parents  is  an  entire  accidental  affair),  and  that  there  is  another 
baptism  for  adults,  which  is  to  be  administered  on  quite  different 
principles  ;  the  one  requiring  a  change  of  heart,  the  other 
requiring  no  change  whatever  X  I  ask,  can  any  good  man  say 
this  is  harmless,  when  it  is  well  known  that  it  has  not  the 
smallest  countenance  in  the  word  of  God. ?  Another  serious  evil 
ensues  :  The  New  Testament  is  rendered  by  Mr.  E.  entirely 
silent  as  to  the  subjects  of  baptism,  in  order  that  he  may  take 
advar-tap-e  of  that  silence,  and  thereby  artfully  bring  in  infant 


77 

sprinkling  by  implication,  and  inference ;  yea,  and  infer  it  From 
that  very  silence,  which  he  himself  has  brought  about. 

Would  it  not  be  reasonable  to  suppose,  that  where  a  command 
is  given  to  baptize  certain  characters,  and  afterward,  in  strict 
conformity  with  that  command,  this  is  done,  and  in  describing 
it,  the  persons  to  whom  it  was  administered,  their  character, 
and  the  way  in  which  it  was  performed  ;  all  exactly  correspond 
with  the  original  instructions,  and  not  an  instance  of,  nor  yet  a 
single  hint  given,  that  any  other  character  had  been  thus  bap- 
tized, nor  yet  that  it  had  been  done  in  any  other  way  :  I  say, 
would  it  not  be  reasonable  to  suppose  the  command  thus  given, 
and  thus  executed,  would  be  a  sufficient  guide  to  those  who 
wished  to  know  what  was  right  on  that  subject  \  Now  all  this- 
is  true  of  the  New  Testament  account  of  baptism.  The  apostles 
are  commanded  first  to  teach,  and  then  to  baptize,  Matth. 
xxviii.  19.;  they  understood  their  instructions,  and  required 
faith  of  one  before  baptism,  Acts  viii.  37.;  of  others  it  is  said, 
they  baptized  them,  because  they  had  received  the  Spirit,  Acts 
x.  48. ;  others  they  refused,  because  they  had  no  repentance, 
Matth.  iii.  7,  8,  9. ;  others  on  the  confession  made  of  their  sin, 
are  baptized,  Matth.  iii.  6. ;  in  several  instances,  they  first 
preach,  then  the  pious  exercises  of  thousands  are  described, 
and,  as  before,  baptism  is  administered  to  these,  and  only  these, 
as  far  as  the  word  informs  us,  Acts  ii.  37,  38. ;  and  of  others, 
spiritual  joy  is  mentioned,  Acts  viii.  12.  39. 

But  is  there  any  thing  said  of  infants  being  baptized  ?  No, 
not  one  word.  Is  there  any  thing  said  of  one  person  being 
baptized,  without  believing  or  repenting  ?  No,  not  one  word.  Is 
it  pretended  that  infants  are  believers,  and  exercise  the  grace 
of  repentance?  No,  not  a  sentence  is  said  to  establish  this., 
This  cinssification  rendering  the  New  Testament  speechless^ 
makes  it  incapable  of  settling  the  dispute  between  us  and  our 
opponents  ;  which  will  thus  appear  :  When  a  Baptist  asserts, 
that  the  baptizing  of  infants  is  wrong,  the  immediate  answer  is, 
How  do  you  prove  it  to  be  wrong  ?  If  the  reply  is,  that  it  is 
'contrary  to  the  command  of  Christ,  and  the  example  of  the 
apostles  ;  the  answer  is,  Shew  us  wherein  it  is  contrary.  The 
reply  is,  That  faith  and  repentance  are  required  -of  candidates 
for  the  ordinance,  and  some  were  refused  for  not  having  these 
qualifications  ;  while  there  never  was  an  instance  recorded  in. 
the  scripture,  of  baptism  being  administered  to  any  persons, 
but  unto  such  as  possessed  them.  Then  comes  in  Mr,  E.'s 
answer  thus  :  '  I  do  not  deny  that  these  qualifications  were 
required,  but  of  whom  ?  not  of  infants,  but  of  adults,  I  acknow- 
ledge them  to  have  been  required  of  adults;  but  insist,  they 
Kere  not  required  of  infants. *    But  if  the  Baptist  replica  wftere 


78 

do  you  find  scripture  to  prove  infants  were  at  all  baptized,  and 
that  these  qualifications  are  not  required  ?  O,  says  he,  we  do  not 
pretend  to  produce  scripture  for  this  sentiment,  but  we  infer  it 
from  certain  passages  ;  and  as  all  the  texts  you  have  quoted 
have  no  bearing  on  the  dispute  about  infants  at  all,  and  there  are 
no  other  texts  that  speak  of  them,  I  am  to  prove  their  right  by 
inference,  and  you  are  to  disprove  their  right  by  inference  only ; 
for  you  see  my  classification  cuts  you  off  from  scripture  texts 
that  are  positive. 

Without  this  word  adult,  you  see,  he  can  do  nothing  against 
the  Baptist ;  for  were  the  two  words,  believer  and  unbeliever y 
substituted  in  the  place  of  adult  and  infant,  then  the  dispute  on 
Mr.  E.'s  plan  of  conducting  it  would  immediately  be  at  an  end* 
nnd  a  decisive  victory  be  on  what  we  believe  the  Lord's  side- 
On  this  principle,  let  us  see  how  readily  his  questions  may  be 
answered ' 

P*  E.  You  deny  that  the  baptizing  of  infants  is  right ;  on 
what  principle  do  you  thus  deny  ? 

B.  We  deny  it  because  they  have  not  the  qualifications. 

P.  E.  What  are  the  qualifications  I 

B.  They  are  faith  and  repentance  j  and  you  have  such  and 
such  scriptures  in  proof  of  it. 

P.  E.  Then  you  deny  them  baptism  because  they  are  infants. 

B.  Not  so,  but  because  they  have  not  the  qualifiations  re- 
quired, and  which  you  own  infants  have  not. 

P.  E.  Then  you  baptize  others  because  they  are  adults. 

B.  In  this  also  you  are  equally  wrong ;  for  we  baptize  great 
numbers  of  various  ages,  and  very  many  that  are  not  adults ;  and 
this  we  do,  not  because  of  age  or  stature  ;  but,  because  they 
are  believers  in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  come  up  to  the 
character  described  as  a  worthy  candidate  ;  and  if  an  infant  of 
eight  days  old,  could  evidence  he  had  faith  in  Christ,  we  should 
baptize  him  as  freely  as  any  others. 

P.  E.  But  I  think  the  qualifications  were  required  of  adults 
only ;  of  infants  they  were  not  required,  and  therefore  they  are 
to  be  baptized  without  them. 

B.  You  ought  to  shew  first,  that  infants  are  at  all  enjoined  to 
be  baptized,  and  then  it  would  be  time  enough  to  enquire  about 
their  qualifications.  But  where  do  you  find  adult  baptism,  and 
infant  baptism,  spoken  of  in  scripture  \  I  demand  authority  for 
these  two  baptisms. 

I  ask,  how  would  Peter  Edwards  answer  this  last  question  ? 
IV]  ust  it  not  confound  him— leave  him  speechless — and  over- 
throw all  his  sophistry.  But  let  him  ask  a  Baptist  where  he  finds 
scripture  to  justify  the  words,  believers  baptism,  and  the  non- 
baptism  of  unbelievers  j  how  easy  is  it  to  furnish  abundant  proof. 


79 

I  shall  certainly  claim  the  indulgence  of  the  reader,  for  repeating 
what  before  had  been  advanced  in  my  strictures  on  Mr.  E.'s 
theses  ;  but  if  repetition  is  burdensome,  it  has  been  forced  upon 
me  by  Mr.  E.,  who  again  and  again  repeats  the  same  argument.. 
If  Mr.  E.  will  use  words  in  the  controversy,  on  the  admission 
of  which  the  whole  issue  depends,  surely  he  is  bound  in  the  first 
instance,  to  prove  them  scriptural ;  and  I  rest  with  confidence 
on  this,  that  no  man,  no,  nor  angel  from  heaven,  will  be  able  to 
adduce  one  text  to  prove,  that  the  New  Testament  speaks  of 
two  baptisms,  the  one  for  adults^  and  the  other  a  distinct  one, 
designed  only  for  infants. 

Mr.  E.'s  next  attempt  is,  to  shew  the  fallacy  of  the  argument 
"  that  faith  and  repentance  ought  to  be  required  of  infants  in  order 
to  baptism"— see  page  20.  He  might  spare  himself  the  trouble 
of  doing  this  ;  for  he  never  heard  a  Baptist  say,  that  they  were 
required  of  an  infant :  on  the  contrary,  our  sentiment  is,  that 
the  scriptures  are  not  addressed  to  infants  at  all.  Perhaps  it 
would  be  better  for  him,  first  to  make  it  appear  that  the  gospel 
is  addressed  to  infants,  and  requires  duties  to  be  performed  by 
them,  while  in  that  state.  It  would  never  have  entered  into 
the  head  of  any  man  but  a  defendant  of  Predobaptism  to  assert, 
the  gospel  is  addressed  to  infants ;  for  without  supposing  the 
gospel  addressed  to  an  infant,  and  requiring  duties  of  it,  the 
baptizing  of  it  would  instantly  appear  absurd.  Pray,  Mr.  E., 
ought  you  not  first  to  tell  us  who  the  Baptists  are,  that  require 
faith  and  repentance  of  infants  ?  In  what  an  aukward  predica- 
ment are  you  placed !  You  know,  sir,  that  we  do  not  believe 
that  the  word  of  God  is  addressed  to  them  at  all,  while  in  an 
infantile  state  ;  and  hence,  while  such,  none  of  the  duties  it 
specifies  are  required  of  them.  Were  you,  sir,  to  admit  this, 
there  would  be  an  end  of  infant  baptism  at  once  :  but  if  you 
will  not  admit  it,  then  pray  begin  at  the  right  end  of  your  work  ; 
first  prove  the  obligation  of  the  babe  to  receive,  peruse,  believe 
and  obey  the  gospel ;  then,  of  course,  baptism  will  come  in . 
among  the  rest  of  the  duties. 

But  you  ask,  Why  do  the  Baptists  say,  infants  ought  not  to 
be  baptized  without  having  these  pre-requisites  ;  do  not  these 
very  pre-requisites  imply  their  duty  to  believe  and  repent  ?  Not 
at  all,  we  require  no  duties  of  them,  because  God  does  not ;  but 
you  require  the  performance  of  a  duty  from  them,  which  God 
has  only  enjoined  on  a  believer;  and  hence,  }'ou  force  the  reply 
from  us,  that  if  you  will  have  them  to  perform  the  duties  that 
devolve  on  a  believer  only  to  do ;  to  be  consistent  with  yourselves* 
you  ought  to  prove  they  have  faith.  Hence  it  is  easy  seen,  that 
it  is  our  opponents  who  compel  us  to  insist  on  their  possessing 
faith  and  repentance,  because  they  will  have  them  to  be  baptized,. 


80 

What  Mr.  E.  aims  at,  is  to  shew,  that  faith  and  repentance  arc 
cot  essential  to  baptism  ;  or,  in  other  words,  that  baptism  may 
be  performed  without  either ;  and  that,  admitting  both  were 
required,  yet  this  will  not  affect  the  case  of  infants,  because  he 
thinks  they  were  required  from  adults  only,  and  therefore  infants 
were  never  intended.  He  then  means  to  prove  infants  were  not 
included  in  the  requisition,  by  four  arguments  ;  in  which  he 
fails.  These  being  his  total  force,  we  must  consider  the  cause 
as  lost  to  him. — He  reasons  thus  : 

u  In  order  to  judge  of  the  real  worth  of  an  argument,  I  lay 
down  this  rule  :  '  Every  argument  that  will  prove  against  au 
evident  truth  ;  or,  which  is  the  same  thing,  every  argument 
which  will  support  falsehood,  is  clearly  a  bad  argument.'  This 
rule  is  self-evident ;  for  that  must  needs  be  false,  which  proves 
a  falsehood."  We  are  fully  agreed  to  this  :  but  he  says,  "  I 
will  proceed  by  this  rule,  and  attempt  to  shew, — I.  That  thi3 
argument,"  (that  is,  about  faith  and  repentance  being  required 
of  all  subjects  for  baptism)  "  is  entirely  fallacious.  II.  Point 
out  wherein  its  fallacy  consists."  He  proceeds,  by  saying,  that 
the  tendency  of  this  argument,  "  That  infants  are  excluded 
from  baptism,  because  something  is  said  of  baptism  which  will 
not  agree  to  infants,"  is  to  prove  error. 

This  first  argument  is  founded  on  the  circumcision  of  infants. 
This,  he  affirms,  was  done  by  u  the  express  command  of  God,'* 
4  they  must  have  been  proper  subjects  of  such  an  institution,  is 
evident  from  the  command  given' — that  "  this  was  a  solemn 
entering  into  the  church" — that  by  this  rite  every  child  so 
circumcised  became  "  a  debtor  to  do  the  whole  law" — that  this 
last  requisition  "  could  not  be  performed  by  an  infant" — and 
that  "  circumcision  and  baptism  were  initiating  ordinances  into 
the  church  of  God."  The  conclusion  is,  that  if  duties  were 
required  of  the  one,  which  he  could  not  perform,  even  to  keep 
the  law,  and  that  inability  did  not  disqualify  for  circumcision  ; 
so  neither  does  a  want  of  faith  and  repentance  disqualify  for 
baptism. 

I  do  not  deny  that  circumcision  was  an  express  command  of 
God;  nor  yet,  that  Jewish  infants  were  proper  subjects  of  this 
rite.  But  that  circumcision  was  a  solemn  entering  into  the 
church,  this  is  not  true  ;  for  they  were  in  what  Mr.  E.  calls  the 
church  before,  as  will  appear  from  Gen.  xvii.  14.  "  And  the 
uncircumcised  male  child,  whose  flesh  of  his  foreskin  is  not 
circumcised,  that  soul  shall  be  cut  off  from  his  people."  Now, 
if  the  Jew  was  in  the  church  before  his  circumcision,  how  could 
circumcision  be  an  entering  in  ?  If  he  was  not  in  until  brought 
in  by  circumcision,  in  the  name  of  sense,  how  could  he  be 
separated,  when  in  fact  he  was  not  joined  to  the  people. 


81 

The  text  quoted  to  prove,  that  by' being  circumcised  the 
person  became  a  debtor  to  do  the  whole  law,  proves  not  the 
point ;  for  the  apostle  intended,  that  if  the  Galatians,  who  were 
gentiles,  were  to  become  circumcised,  this  act  of  theirs  would 
be  a  virtual  renunciation  of  Christ,  a  declaring  the  Messiah  not 
come ;  and  that,  therefore,  the  law  was  still  obligatory,  inas- 
much as  it  was  designed  to  stand  until  the  coming  of  Christ. — 
But  if  a  mere  circumcision,  without  respect  to  motive,  laid  the 
party  under  obligation  to  keep  the  whole  law  ;  then,  when  Paul 
circumcised  Timothy,  he  by  so  doing  placed  him,  as  this 
gentleman  would  have  it,  under  a  necessity  of  obeying  the  whole 
law  for  himself :  Oh,  cruel  Paul !  But  does  he  mean  by  the 
whole  law,  the  moral  law  among  the  rest  ?  This  cannot  be  ;  for 
an  obligation  to  that  did  not  depend  on  being  circumcised,  but 
was  antecedent  to  it.  Then,  of  course,  the  ceremonial  law  was 
intended,  and  the  infant  became  bound  to  the  performance  of 
those  ceremonies.  But  what  if  I,  for  argument  sake,  grant 
what  he  asks,  that  this  text  applies  not  merely  to  the  Galatians, 
and  others  in  similar  circumstances  with  them  ;  but  that  Paul 
really  meant  that  every  Jewish  infant  became,  when  circumcised, 
a  debtor  to  do  the  whole  ceremonial  law  ?  You  will  see  presently, 
that  even  this  concession  will  be  of  no  use  to  him. 

The  second  affirmation  I  notice  is,  that  in  being  circumcised 
the  infant  Jew  '  could  not  perform  the  obligation,  yet  it  was  his 
duty  ;'  and  the  conclusion  drawn  is,  that  the  case  of  an  infant  as 
to  baptism  is  the  same  at  present,  and  the  incapacity  of  the  last 
to  believe  and  repent,  no  more  precluded  him  from  baptism, 
than  the  former  from  that  Jewish  rite.  That  they  were  not  in 
similar  circumstances,  will  immediately  appear.  The  Jewish 
infant  was  commanded  to  be  circumcised,  and  the  parent  to 
perform  it :  but,  where  is  the  command  for  an  infant  to  be 
baptized  ;  and  where  is  the  parent  enjoined  to  have  it  done  ? 
The  exact  period  of  eight  days  old  was  pointed  out  then  :  but 
\vThere  have  parents  any  such  instructions,  with  respect  to  bap- 
tism ?  The  duties  to  be  performed  by  the  infant,  lay  merely 
in  outward  things,  all  of  which  he  could  perform  by  proxy, 
the  duties  lying  in  mere  ceremonial  obedience,  and  requiring 
no  gracious  dispositions  to  the  right  performance  of  them  :  but 
who  will  pretend  to  say,  that  the  duties  of  a  member  of  the 
church  of  Christ  lie  merely  in  outward  things,  and  require  not 
gracious  dispositions  to  perform  them  i  I  have  no  doubt,  but 
that  the  custom  of  parents  binding  themselves,  and  of  making 
vows  to  perform  the  duties  obligatory  on  those  in  a  church  state 
in  behalf  of  their  children,  originated  in  this  verv  injunction  of 
God  on  the  Jews  to  circumcise  their  children,  when  incapable  of 
doing  any  thing  for  thems-ives.  But  then,  for  want  of  knowing 
how  different  the  duties  of  the  one  were  from  the  other,  parents 


J52 

have  ventured  forward  rashly,  to  promise  for  their  children 
what  they  cannot  do  for  themselves,  and  what  God  by  no  means 
required  of  them.  How  readily  could  the  parent  of  the  Jewish 
infant  present  to  the  Lord  the  different  offerings  and  sacrifices, 
which  he  directed  for  their  child,  and  also  perform  for  him  all 
the  ceremonial  purifications  enjoined  :  but  is  it  not  exceedingly 
strange,  that  men  should  in  the  present  day,  infer  it  as  duty  from 
hence,  to  represent  their  children  before  God  r 

From  hence  it  is  evident,  that  not  only  is  the  affirmation  untrue, 
that  tue  Jewish  infant,  as  it  related  to  circumcision,  and  infants 
of  the  present  day,  are  precisely  in  the  same  situation  :  but  it 
wrill  also  appear  plain,  that  while  all  the  duties  enjoined  in  the 
one  case,  could  be  performed  by  the  parent  of  the  child  ;  in  the 
last,  it  were  utterly  impossible.  This  argument,  drawn  from 
the  incapacity  of  the  Jewish  infant,  \vTill  not  stand  :  1.  Because 
if  God  required  duties  of  the  infant,  they  were  not  such  as 
needed  supernatural  md.  2.  They  were  such  as  another  could 
perform  for  him.  3>  He  provided  and  commanded  persons  to 
discharge  those  duties  in  its  behalf.  4.  For  their  being  done, 
there  was  a  positive  command.  But  in  the  case  of  the  baptizing 
of  infants,  no  such  command  is  given.  Qualifications  are 
required  which  they  have  not :  (but  which  wras  not  so  in  the 
other  case ;  for  every  Jewish  infant  had  the  prerequisite)  :  they 
are  not  such  as  another  can  perform  for  them ;  neither  has  God 
made  any  provision  for  the  helpless  infant  in  this  respect,  nor 
could  all  the  angels  in  heaven  perform  for  him,  what  God 
requires  from  every  subject  of  gospel  baptism.  How  then  could 
Mr.  E  declare  the  two  cases  similar  ?  We  enquire,  how  does 
this  argument  go,  in  u  opposition  to  his  rule  laid  down  r"  Did 
God  require  any  spiritual  qualification  in  the  Jewish  infant  f 
Certainly  he  did  not.  Does  then  the  proposition,  that  God 
demands  faith  and  repentance  in  order  to  baptism,  and  which 
demand  bars  infants  from  partaking  of  it ;  does  this  demand 
prove  w  error"  because  a  Jewish  infant  was  to  be  circumcised 
without  any  such  qualifications  being  required  ?  Had  Mr.  E, 
proved  in  reality,  that  both  were  church  ordinances  and  required 
like  qua&ficaticns,  and  that  faith  and  repentance  were  demanded 
of  an  adult  Jezv,  in  order  to  circumcision,  as  they  are  demanded 
in  the  gospel,' in  order  to  baptism  :  in  that  case,  he  would  have 
been  nearer  his  point.  But  even  then  the  cases  would  not  be 
similar,  because  every  male  child  of  Abraham,  whether  adult 
or  infant,  were  commanded  to  be  circumcised  ;  and  it  is  well 
known,  that  every  adult  and  infant  are  no  where  commanded  to 
be  baptized. 

To  shew  that  faith  and  repentance  are  not  necessary,  he 
advances  the  baptism  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ ;  observing, 
that  "  Christ  was  no  sinner,"  and  therefore  could  not  exercise 


83 

repentance  ;  that  he  needed  not  salvation,  therefore  could  have 
no  faith  to  act.  His  conclusions  are,  that  either  "  the  baptism 
of  Christ  was  wrong,"  (he  not  having  the  pre-requisites)  "  or 
else  the  argument  is  false."  He  then  contends  it  cannot  be 
wrong ;  but,  if  not,  then  it  is  not  an  universal  rule,  that  subjects 
of  baptism  must  have  faith  and  repentance*  His  last  conclusion 
is,  that  "  it  is  a  rule  for  some  only,"  and  the  exception  is  in 
favour  of  infants  who  cannot  believe  and  repent. 

I  am  certainly  not  disposed  to  doubt  of  Christ  being  a  fit 
subject  for  baptism  j  nor  do  I  deny  that  he  needed  no  repentance 
and  faith,  in  order  to  salvation.  But  it  is  extremdy  hazardous 
to  say,  that  because  Christ  had  no  need  of  faith  and  repentance, 
that  therefore,  none  are  needed  by  others  in  such  a  case.  Is 
tiot  this  to  dispute  the  business  with  Christ  himself,  who  has 
required  them  ?  Admit,  then,  that  what  Mr.  E.  says  is  strictly 
true,  that  Christ  not  having  faith  and  repentance,  and  yet 
receiving  baptism,  proves  that  others  may  be  baptized,  who  have 
them  not ;  where  will  Mr.  E.  stop  in  applying  this  rule  I  Will 
he  say,  the  exception  is  in  favour  of  infants  only  ?  No  ;  there 
he  cannot  stop,  because  there  are  millions  without  faith  and 
repentance  as  well  as  they,  even  all  unconverted  persons.  But, 
to  avoid  the  difficulty,  will  he  say,  these  are  wicked,  unconverted 
persons  ?  Be  it  so.  Would  he  not,  in  such  a  reply,  deny  the 
depravity  of  infants,  and  make  out  that  they  needed  no  grace  ? 

But  stop,  sir,  you  are  not  at  liberty  to  apply  it  to  infants  only, 
others  are  without  faith  as  well  as  they  ;  and  if  you  will  take 
advantage  of  the  Saviour's  baptism  in  this  instance,  you  mus?: 
go  all  the  length,  and  make  it  the  privilege  of  every  ungracious 
person  ;  for  you  can  furnish  no  just  reason  why  the  exception 
shouldbe  in  favour  of  one,  more  than  another,  who  is  void  of  faith. 
Now,  sir,  take  your  own  rule  and  apply  it:  "  That  which  proves 
what  is  false,  cannot  be  true  ;"  but  if  the  baptism  of  Christ 
justifies  the  baptism  of  a  person  without  faith  and  repentance> 
then  it  equally  justifies  the  baptism  of  all  of  that  description  ; 
but  as  this  is  of  necessity  false,  then  the  argument  drawn  from 
Christ's  baptism  must  needs  be  false.  This  argument  therefore, 
if  it  proves  any  thing,  proves  more  than  you  wish  it  to  prove, 
and  must  fall  of  itself. 

But  what  if  I  should  avail  myself  of  the  very  objections  he 
mentions,  will  the  consequences  follow  that  he  speaks  of  ?  Let 
us  see  :  4  If,  says  he,  you  should  object  that  Christ's  baptism  was 
no  rule  for  us  on  account  of  the  dignity  of  his  person,  still  you 
admit  there  was  an  exception  against  the  rule,  that  fafth  and 
repentance  is  always  necessarv  thereunto  ;'  and  then  asks,  "  how 
many  exceptions  are  there?"  This  question  is  readily  answered 
by  saying,  just  as  many  as  there  are  persons  in  Christ's  situation 


84 

.Now  if  the  exceptions  to  this  rule  must  only  operate  in  favour 
of  persons  claiming  equal  dignity  with  Christ,  and  to  extend  it 
farther  would  be  ridiculous ;  how  then  will  this  operate  in  favour 
ot  infants?  Are  infants,  and  unbelievers  of  every  description, 
equal  in  dignity  with  the  divine  Saviour?  and  have  they,  there- 
tore,  a  right  to  plead  this  exception  in  their  favour  ?  When  a 
precedent  is  established  which  is  to  operate  in  courts  of  judica- 
ture, and  a  person  pleads  the  same  in  his  own  favour,  is  it  not 
indispensibly  necessary  he  should  make  it  appear  the  cases  are 
parallel  ones  ?  Well,  then,  here  is  the  Lawgiver,  that  institutes 
baptism,  who  himself  submits  to  it ;  but  he  does  it  without 
certain  forms  that  are  enjoined  on  others  ;  as  a  reason  for  this 
departure  from  form,  he  assigns  the  dignity  of  his  station,  and 
the  great  superiority  over  any  other  person  in  point  of  worth  ; 
but  would  it  not  be  preposterous  for  the  subjects  to  omit  the 
forms  in  question  on  the  account  of  his  having  done  so,  when 
they  neither  possess  his  station  or  his  worth  ?  This  would,  of 
itself,  abundantly  shew,  that  our  demand  for  faith  and  repen- 
tance, in  order  to  baptism,  is  not  weakened  by  the  baptism  of 
Christ ;  because  a  case  can  never  again  occur,  nor  can  there 
ever  be  another  exception  to  this  rule,  on  that  very  account. 

He  asks  again,  c  Do  the  Baptists  say  Christ  was  baptized  as 
an  example  V  this  would  be  worse  still  for  their  argument, c  and 
go  to  prove,  that  he  set  an  example  to  justify  persons  without 
faith  and  repentance,  being  baptized ;'  and  then  he  concludes 
our  cause  is  ruined.  There  is  one  thing  Mr.  E.  entirely  glided 
over  ;  that  is,  that  the  want  of  faith  and  repentance  in  Christ, 
and  the  want  of  them  in  unbelievers  of  the  human  race  of  every 
description,  proceeds  from  very  different  causes  :  The  want  of 
faith  and  repentance  in  Christ  proceeded  from  his  entire  inno- 
■eence,  and  the  perfection  of  his  nature  ;  but  the  want  of  them 
^in  others,  proceeds  from  their  imperfection  and  great  sinfulness. 
Now,  would  any  one  but  Mr.  E.  assert,  that  these  are  parallel 
cases  ?  and  that  because  Christ,  who  was  no  sinner,  -might  be 
baptized  without  repentance,  which  in  the  nature  of  things  he 
could  not  have  ;  that  for  this  very  reason,  a  person  confessedly 
a  sinner  ought  to  be  baptized  without  repentance  ?  This  is  logic 
with  a  witness,  that  a  good  man  having  received  certain  marks 
of  favour,  as  the  reward  of  his  piety  and  extraordinary  virtue  ; 
this  should  give  to  the  vilest  a  just  and  valid  claim  to  the  same 
thing. 

I  should  however  have  thought,  that  the  example  of  Christ 
ought  rather  to  operate  in  favour  of  believers  baptism,  than  in 
favour  of  the  baptism  of  unbelievers  ;  and  that  for  reasons  the 
very  reverse  to  what  Mr.  E.  assigns.  The  reasons  are,  that 
J*eiievers  have  received  of  Christ's  Spirit,  are  conformed  to  his 


85 

image,  and  bear  his  likeness  ;  but  unbelievers  have  not  his 
Spirit,  have  no  such  conformity,  nor  are  they  like  him  in  any 
degree.  If,  therefore,  Christ  is  an  example,  is  he  so  to  the 
first  character,  or  to  the  last  ?  If  he  is  no  example  at  all,  then 
his  baptism  will  not  operate  in  favour  of  unbelievers,  because  it 
is  no  rule  to  go  by  ;  if  he  is  an  example,  it  does  not  favour 
them,  because  his  case  and  theirs  are  not  parallel :  but  if  he  is 
no  example,  the  duty  of  the  believer  is  still  the  same,  because 
he  has  a, command ;  and  if  it  is  such,  then  the  example  of  Christ 
stimulates  him  more,  because  he  bears  his  likeness.  Beside  all 
this,  Christ  is  said  to  be  an  example  to  the  godly,  1  Pet.  ii.  21. ; 
but  where  is  it  hinted  that  he  is  so  to  unbelievers  ?  We  expect 
Mr.  E.to  cavil  at  the  remark,  "  the  want  of  faith  and  repentance 
arises  from  a  fallen,  sinful  state  ;"  and  that  he  will  say,  this 
reasoning  will  not  apply  to  infants,  for  their  want  of  these 
qualifications  arises  from  natural  incapacity*  But  will  Mr.  E. 
pretend  to  say,  they  are  not  depraved,  and  do  not  possess  the 
very  same  principle  which  produces  unbelief  and  the  hard  heart, 
in  an  adult :  and  that  nothing  is  wanting  to  the  exercise  of  both, 
but  the  maturity  of  their  powers  ?  If  these  he  will  not  say,  and 
I  am  persuaded  he  will  not ;  then  he  does  but  admit  a  twofold 
incapacity,  natural  and  moral,  proves  a  total  unlikeness  between 
them  and  the  great  Head  of  the  church,  and  fully  establishes  the 
absurdity  of  his  own  reasonings. 

Once  more  :  The  reasons  for  which  faith  and  repentance  are 
required,  in  order  to  baptism,  will  shew  the  fallacy  of  applying 
the  case  of  Christ's  baptism  to  unbelievers  of  any  description 
whatever.  Faith  and  repentance  are  required  in  order  to  bap-^ 
tism,  not  because  of  any  thing  in  themselves,  but  as  they 
evidence  a  change  of  heart,  and  thereby  prove  the  soul  to  be 
born  in  the  image  of  Christ.  The  profession  of  faith  and 
repentance,  therefore,  with  other  graces  of  the  Spirit,  are  but 
the  index  of  the  mind,  and  shew,  as  we  charitably  hope,  what 
exists  there.  A  want  of  these,  proves  the  soul  to  be  still  in  an 
unrenewed  state  :  but  as  the  members  of  Christ's  spiritual 
kingdom  are  to  be  regenerated  persons,  and  must  be  like  their 
divine  Master,  these  are  required  ;  therefore,  these  are  asked 
for,  to  prove  such  an  union  with,  and  likeness  to,  Christ.  Now, 
how  does  Christ's  example  affect  us  in  the  argument,  and  how 
can  it  help  the  cause  of  unbelievers  ?  Christ  was  baptized  for 
this,  among  other  reasons,  that  he  was  a  holy  person,  though 
he  needed  not  faith  and  repentance  to  make  that  apparent :  but 
others  are  to  bfl^aptized  in  token  of  their  being  regenerated  and 
holy  persons  ;  and  this  they  can  make  manifest  in  no  other  way, 
than  by  their  faith  and  repentance. ,  Now,  the  argument  will 
stand  thus  ;  Christ  was  holy,  and  therefore  was  baptized,  and 

31 


£6 

♦his  was  done  without  repentance,  because  he  needed  not  repent 
ance  to  make  his  holiness  known.  Believers  also  are  to  be 
baptized,  because  they  resemble  their  Master  in  holiness  ;  but 
this  they  cannot  manifest  otherwise  than  by  the  qualifications 
before  mentioned.  Apply  this  to  unbelievers,  and  then  it  will 
stand  thus  :  Christ  was  holy  and  needed  not  repentance  to 
evidence  it,  yet  he  was  baptized  as  a  token  of  his  purity;  there- 
fore persons  without  faith  are  to  be  baptized,  although  it  is 
conceded,  that  only  faith  and  repentance  can  prove  a  person  to 
be  regenerated,  and  without  which  they  are  not  so  #.  I  now 
ask,  to  which  character  the  example  of  Christ  best  suits,  and 
whether  it  is  not  altogether  in  favour  of  the  baptism  of  believers, 
and  entirely  against  that  of  the  contrary  character  ? 

His  third  argument  is  on  the  salvation  of  infants,  in  which  he 
says, "  That  infants  maybe  the  subjects  of  salvation  is  universally 
admitted  ;  that  those  who  die  in  infancy,  are  actually  glorified, 
is  also  granted :  and  yet  there  is  something  said  concerning 
salvation,  which  will  by  no  means  agree  to  infants.  "  He  that 
believeth  shall  be  saved ;  he  that  believeth  not  shall  be  damned." 
The  use  he  makes  of  this  is,  "  If  infants  must  not  be  baptized, 
because  something  is  said  of  baptism,  which  does  not  agree  to 
infants  ;  then,  by  the  same  rule,  infants  must  not  be  saved, 
because  something  is  said  of  salvation,  which  does  not  agree  to 
infants." 

These  cases  are  not  similar,  because  there  is  something  said 
in  the  text  to  shew,  that  it  was  not  designed  for  infants.  And 
the  salvation  of  infants  is  not  to  be  gathered  by  implication  only, 
as  infant  baptism  must  be,  if  it  is  ever  established  ;  but  is 
expressed  in  unequivocal  terms,  "  Suffer  the  little  children  to 
•come  unto  me,  and  forbid  them  not ;  for  of  such  is  the  kingdom 
of  heaven,"  Mark  x.  14.  And,  "  their  angels  do  alway  behold 
the  face  of  my  Father  which  is  in  heaven."  The  fact,  therefore, 
is  this,  that  when  it  is  said,  "  He  that  believeth  shall  be  saved, 
and  he  that  believeth  not  shall  be  damned,"  we  do  understand 
the  text  as  not  having  any  respect  unto  infants  who  cannot 
believe  ;  not  because  it  is  admitted  bv  general  consent  that  they 
will  be  saved ;  but  because  the  scriptures  declare,  that  such 
dying  in  infancy  are  saved.  But  how  stands  the  case  with  infant 
baptism  ?  The  text  says  faith  and  repentance  are  required,  in 
order  to  baptism  ;  and  it  is  admitted,  faith  and  repentance  they 
have  not :  but  then  there  is  no  where  an  exception  in  their 


*  It  may  be  thought  strange,  that  I  should  say  baptism  was  to  signify  the 
holiness  of  the  candidate  :  but  let  it  be  remembered  that  it  has  ever  been 
considered  as  an  emblem  of  regeneration.  See  such  texts.  1  Peter  iii.  21. 
Acts  xxii,  26.    Rom.  vi.  3,  4, 


sr 

favour- as  it  respects  baptism,  freeing  them  from  the  obligation 
to  believe  and  repent ;  or  in  other  words,  permitting  them  to  be 
baptized  without  such  qualifications. 

Now  the  argument  stands  thus  :  Faith  is  required  in  order 
to  salvation  ;  but  infants  dying  in  infancy  are  not  included  in 
this  rule,  because  they  are  said  to  be  in  heaven,  even  though 
they  cannot  believe.  As  to  baptism,  it  would  stand  thus :  Faith 
and  repentance  are  required  in  order  to  baptism  ;  but  infants 
must  be  affected  by  this  rule,  because  there  is  no  passage  in  the 
word  that  says  they  may  be  baptized  without  them.  Then  the 
conclusion  that  follows  is  :  Though  we  are  bound  to  believe,  on 
the  express  warrant  of  the  word,  that  infants  will  be  saved 
who  die  in  infancy,  though  incapable  of  the  exercise  of  faith  > 
yet  we  are  not„boundto  believe  that  infants  ought  to  be  baptized 
who  have  not  faith  ;  because,  in  the  first  instance,  we  have  the 
authority  of  the  word,  but  in  the  last  case  we  have  it  not ;  and 
there  has  been  no  relaxation  of  the  precept  in  their  favour.  This 
one  remark  therefore,  is  sufficient  to  evince  the  total  dissimilarity 
of  the  two  cases  in  question  ;  and  that  there  is  no  such  thing  as 
arguing  from  one  to  the  other,  without  the  greatest  absurdity, 
and  giving  evidence  of  a  very  incautious  or  dishonest  mind. 

I  must  contend  therefore,  that  the  maxim  is  not  to  be  contro- 
verted,  that  where  God  declares  in  his  word  any  general  rule 
of  duty- ,  this  rule  must  affect  every  of  the  parties,  unless  there 
is  some  particular  exception  in  favour  of  some.  It  is  so  in  the 
civil  laws,  that  all  are  implied,  unless  there  is  some  clause  of 
exception,  or  provision  otherwise  made.  Baptism  is  a  rule  ; 
the  persons  to  perform  it  are  described  as  "  believers  ;"  those 
not  to  do  it,  are  described  by  a  being  destitute  of  faith.  These 
two  characters  embrace  all  the  human  family.  No  exception  is 
any  where  made  in  favour  of  infants,  and  therefore  the  prohibit 
tory  rule  applying  to  them,  they  cannot  be  baptized.  Apply  the 
rule  to  the  other  case.  The  general  rule  is,  "  he  that  believeth 
shall  be  saved  ;  he  that  believeth  not  shall  be  damned."  This 
rule  embraces  all  the  human  family,  as  the  other  does,  pointing 
out  who  shall,  and  who  shall  not,  be  saved.  Infants  have  not 
faith,  neither  can  they  exercise  it :  but  infants  are  not  included 
in  this  rule,  who  die  in  infancy,  because  there  is  an  exception  in 
in  their  favour  mentioning  them  by  name.  Now,  is  it  good  reason- 
ing to  say,  that  because  there  is  one  rule  for  the  human  family 
from  which  infants  are  excepted,  and  that  exception  mentioned 
explicitly  ;  that  they  are  not  bound  by  other  rules,  given  to  the 
whole  human  family,  wherein  there  is  no  such  exception  in  their 
favour  found  ?  Surely,  such  reasoning  must  appear  ridiculous 
to  even'  reflecting  mind  ;  yet  such  are  the  reasonings  of  Mr. 
E,  on  this  case.     The  conclusion  is  therefore  contrary  to  what 


83 

Ire  says'.  There  is  something  said  of  salvation  in  the  Bible 
("  he  that  believeth,"  &c.)  which  does  not  affect  the  salvation 
of  infants  ;  but  there  is  something  said  in  the  Bible  of  baptism 
\\  hich  does  affect,  and  entirely  preclude  the  baptism  of  infants. 

This  argument  is  defective  in  other  points  of  view,  but  of 
Lss  moment ;  and  chiefly  because  it  is  designed  to  prove  the 
right  of  infants  to  baptism,  from  the  possibility  of  their  salvation. 
It  is  defective,  because  it  would  go  farther  than  Pcedobaptists 
intend  ;  for  it  is  their  professed  belief,  that  the  infants  of 
believers  only  are  to  be  baptized  ;  because,  they  say,  such  have 
an  interest  in  the  covenant,  in  common  with  their  believing 
parents :  but  these  gentlemen  admit  that  the  infants  of  the  heathen 
that  decease,  as  well  as  of  believers,  do  go  to  heaven.  If  then, 
infants  have  a  right  to  baptism,  because  they  may  be  saved,  this 
argument  proves  too  much  for  them,  and  they  must  give  up 
Abraham's  covenant  entirely,  and  baptize  every  infant.  It  is 
delusive  ;  for  if  baptism  is  to  be  administered  to  those  who  are 
to  be  saved,  and  that  because  they  will  be  saved,  which  is  indeed 
the  ground  our  Opponents  take,  (for  of  what  significance  is  it 
for  them  to  say,  deceased  infants  will  be  saved,  and  therefore 
you  have  no  right  to  withold  baptism  from  them,  if  they  do 
not  make  their  salvation  an  argument  for  their  baptism) ;  then 
it  is  deceitful,  because  it  is  the  occasion  of  introducing  more  to 
the  ordinance  than  ought  to  come  :  and  it  is  well  known,  that 
though  all  infants  dying  in  infancy  are  saved  ;  yet  all  infants  do 
not  die  in  infancy,  but  some  grow  up  to  man's  estate,  lead  wicked 
lives,  die  miserable  ;  and  yet  these,  under  the  colour  of  infant 
salvation,  must  be  baptized  likewise. 

This  argument  is  likewise  erroneous,  because,  if  a  person  who 
will  be  saved  has  a  right  to  every  institution  on  that  account, 
yea,  and  if  it  is  his  duty  to  submit  to  it ;  then  it  would  follow, 
that  all  the  infants  of  gentiles  were  bound  to  receive  circumcision 
because  they  might  be  saved,  yea,  and  it  would  have  been  the 
duty  of  Lot  to  be  circumcised,  for  he  was  a  good  man  ;  and  the 
same  doctrine  would  make  it  the  duty  of  infants  to  partake  of 
the  supper. 

Mr.  E.  next  introduces  the  text  in  Mark  xvi.  16.  "  He  that 
believeth  and  is  baptized  shall  be  saved  ;  but  he  that  believeth 
not  shall  be  damned."  And  in  order  to  shew  that  this  text,  as 
explained  by.  us  would  either  make  against  the  salvation  of 
infants,  or  the  salvation  of  believers  not  baptized  ;  he  for  this 
purpose  introduces  the  strictures  of  Dr.  Walker  on  this  passage. 
His  words  are :  "  If  none  must  be  baptized  but  he  that  believes, 
because  believing  is  set  first ;  then  none  must  be  saved  but  he 
that  is  baptized,  because  baptizing  is  set  first.  And  then,  what, 
better  argument  can  be  made  for  infant  baptism  \  They  must  be 


89 

baptized  if  we  will  have  them  saved  ;  because  they  cannot  be 
saved  without  being  baptized  ;  for  baptism  goes  before  saving. 
And  yet  from  the  same  text,  and  by  the  same  way  of  arguing, 
it  maybe  proved, that  no  infants  are  saved  but  those  that  believe; 
because  believing  is  set  before  saving :  and  not  only  so,  but 
whereas  it  is  not  said,  he  that  believeth  not  shall  not  be  baptized  j 
it  is  said,  he  that  believeth  not  shall  be  damned." 

For  the  clearing  up  of  the  seeming  difficulty  in  this  way  of 
treating  the  text,  nothing  more  is  needful  than  to  say,  that 
infants  have  nothing  to  do  with  it.  This  was  a  direction  to  the 
disciples,  as  to  their  preaching,  "  Go  preach  the  gospel  to  every 
creature  :"  the  rest  of  the  instruction  goes  to  show  how  they 
should  preach  to  them  to  whom  they  came,  the  sum  of  which 
was,  a  He  that  believeth  and  is  baptized  shall  be  saved ;  and  he 
that  believeth  not  shall  be  damned"  Now,  this  was  to  be  the 
substance  of  their  ministry.  But  how  does  this  affect  the  case 
of  infants  ?  The  apostles  were  not  sent  to  preach  to  them.  The 
error,  therefore,  lies  in  applying  this  text  to  infants,  (who  are  not 
subjects  of  a  gospel  ministry,  who  can  neither  understand  or 
practice  it,  and  are  therefore  not  accountable  for  not  submitting 
to  it,  as  others  would  be  that  hear  it,  or  to  whom  it  was  sent)  ; 
instead  of  applying  it  to  persons  capable  of  hearing  and  refusing 
it.  But,  to  make  it  take  in  the  infant  race,  it  ought  to  be,  Go 
and  preach  the  gospel  to  every  creature,  to  infants,  as  well  as 
mature  persons :  but  the  very  mention  made  of  believing,  at  once 
shews  who  were  intended,  and  that  they  were  persons  capable 
of  receiving  or  resisting  a  gospel  ministry. 

Then  the  plain  literal  meaning  of  the  text  is,  that  the  apostle6 
should  go  and  preach  to  every  creature  ;  that  is,  not  confine 
their  ministry  to  the  Jew  in  particular,  or  to  any  one  nation  in 
preference  to  another,  that  whosoever  among  them  to  whom 
they  preached,  (that  is,  persons  capable  of  reflecting  and  profes- 
sing of  their  faith,  which  is  supposed  by  hearing)  believed  or 
gave  evidence  of  having  a  divine  faith,  they  should  baptize,  and 
to  them  that  thus  believed,  they  were  to  give  assurance  of 
salvation  for  their  comfort:  but  to  those  that  heard,  and  rejected 
their  ministry,  or  were  unawakened  by  it,  they  were  to  assure 
them  they  would  be  damned. 

Now  let  us  see  how  this  unravels  the  Doctor's  theses. — His 
first  is,  \  If  none  must  be  baptized  but  he  that  believes,  then 
none  must  be  saved  but  those  that  are  baptized,  because  baptizing 
comes  before  saving.'  All  this  is  but  a  mere  quibble  on  the 
order  in  which  they  lie  ;  that  because  we  say  believing  must 
come  before  baptizing,  we  must  needs  make  none  saved  but 
those  baptized.  But  it  is  easy  to  see,  that  though  the  words,  on 
repeating,  still  insist  on  faith  before  salvation,  yet  they  do  not 


90 

insist  on  baptism  before  salvation.  If,  for  instance,  it  had  been 
said,  4  He  that  believeth  not,  and  he  that  is  not  baptized,  shall 
be  damned  ;'  then,  by  insisting  on  the  order  of  the  text,  we 
would  have  made  baptism  necessary  to  salvation.  But  as  in  the 
repeating  of  the  words,  the  word  "  baptized"  is  not  mentioned  in 
the  text,  how  shall  we,  by  maintaining  the  order,  insist  on 
baptism  as  necessary  to  salvation  ?  There  is,  indeed,  an  uncom- 
mon beauty  in  the  words  as  they  stand,  and  they  shew  us  how 
exceedingly  guarded  the  divine  lawgiver  was,  that  while  he 
enforced  his  ordinances  by  his  authority,  and  thereby  shewed, 
that  where  divine  faith  was  wrought  through  the  instrumentality 
of  the  zvord  preached,  it  would  always  manifest  its  genuine 
nature  by  obedience  to  his  laws,  one  of  which  is  baptism  ;  yet, 
well  knowing  that  certain  cases  would  occur,  where  a  believer 
could  not  obtain  the  administration  of  that  ordinance,  he  very 
carefully  and  with  much  tenderness,  in  the  repeating  of  the 
words  only  insisted  on  faith  unto  salvation  ;  though,  in  common 
cases  he  insisted  on  baptism,  when  it  might  be  had,  as  an. 
evidence  among  others,  of  their  faith  being  genuine.  If,  on  the 
one  hand,  he  had  left  out  the  word  believeth,  then  the  doctrine 
of  universal  salvation  would  have  been  established  ;  if  he  had 
left  out  baptism  in  the  first  part  of  the  text,  it  would  be  mani- 
festing a  want  of  regard  to  his  own  laws  :  but,  to  cut  off  the 
vain  hope  of  man  on  the  one  side,  and  to  secure  obedience  to 
his  laws  on  the  other,  and  yet  not  throw  into  despair  persons 
who  would  yield  obedience,  but  had  it  not  in  their  power  ;  he 
to  accomplish  this,  demands  a  compliance  with  ordinances,  as 
an  evidence  of  their  faith,  and  of  the  other  only  demands  divine 
faith  (not  baptism)  in  order  to  salvation*. 

Nor  does  his  second  conclusion  follow,  "  That  then  infants 
must  be  baptized,  if  we  would  have  them  saved."  This  conclu- 
sion must  be  false,  if  the  first  is ;  because,  if  baptism  is  not 
insisted  on  in  the  words  as  they  lie,  in  order  to  the  salvation  of 
any  one,  how  then  can  they  insist  on  it  in  order  to  the  salvation 
of  an  infant?  The  conclusion,  therefore,  is  manifestly  incorrect ; 
for  they  do  not  say,  that  either  an  adult  or  an  infant  for  want  of 
baptism  shall  be  damned. 

His  third  conclusion  from  the  text  is,  that  faith  being  required 
before  baptism,  and  also  as  necessary  to  salvation,  would  prove 
that  no  infants  were  saved,  and  that  because  they  cannot  believe. 
His  words  are,  "  And  yet  from  the  same  text,  and  by  the  same 

*  I  have  seen  a  lady,  who  had  discovered  her  duty  to  be  immersed  seven 
years  before  she  could  see  a  minister  that  would  administer  the  ordinance  to 
her.  Such  was  her  exercise  at  one  time,  when  she  came  to  the  water,  she 
was  almost  induced  to  descend  into  it,  and  immerse  herself  in  the  names  of 
the  three  divine  persons. 


91 

way  of  arguing,  it  may  be  proved  that  no  infants  are  saved,  but 
those  that  believe ;  because  believing  is  set  before  saving."  What 
is  here  said  cannot  be  proved  from  this  text,  and  that  for  the 
very  reason  first  assigned  ;  which  is,  that  infants  were  not  the 
subjects  of  a  gospel  ministry,  neither  were  the  apostles  sent  to 
preach  to  them  at  all.  When  the  apostles  were  commissioned 
m  this  text  to  go  and  preach,  it  was  not  to  infants  ;  for  they 
were  not  capable  of  understanding  it,  and  the  preaching  to  such 
would  have  been  ridiculous.  Therefore,  what  is  said  about  faith 
and  baptism  afterwards,  has  nothing  to  do  with  infants,  but  with 
those  only  to  whom  they  were  commissioned  to  preach  ;  such 
as  could  hear  and  understand  the  gospel. 

The  Doctor's  last  conclusion  from  the  text  is,  that  it  does  not 
prohibit  the  unbeliever  from  being  baptized ;  because,  in  the 
repeating  of  it,  it  says  the  unbeliever  shall  be  damned,  but  does 
not  say  he  shall  not  receive  baptism  :  hence  he  wishes  to  make 
this  text  prove,  that  faith  and  repentance  are  not  prerequisites 
to  baptism.  His  words  are,  "  And  not  only  so,  but  whereas  it 
is  not  said,  he  that  believeth  not  shall  not  be  baptized  ;  it  is  said, 
he  that  believeth  not  shall  be  damned."  If  this  doctor's  remarks 
were  just,  and  the  text  did  not  prohibit  the  baptism  of  unbe- 
lievers, yet  there  are  others  that  do  ;  for  Philip  required  faith 
of  the  eunuch,  before  he  would  baptize  him,  Acts  vii.  37.  and 
John  the  Baptist  refused  some  of  the  pharisees,  who  desired 
to  be  baptized  by  him,  and  that  because  they  had  not  true 
repentance,  Matth.  iii. 

We  must  however  be  excused,  if  we  should  enter  our  dissent 
from  his  exposition  of  the  text.  It  is  true,  in  the  repeating  of 
the  text,  nothing  is  said  about  the  unbeliever  as  to  baptism  ;  but 
in  the  former  part  of  the  text,  such  a  prohibition  clearly  exists. 
The  words  are,  Mark  xvi.  16.  "  He  that  believeth  and  is 
baptized,  shall  be  saved ;"  and  the  commission  to  teach  first 
before  they  are  baptized,  is  to  the  same  effect.  It  is  granted, 
the  prohibition  is  not  in  so  many  words,  '  The  unbeliever  shall 
not  be  baptized ;'  but  the  very  command  to  teach  them  first; 
evidences  they  were  not  to  receive  baptism  while  in  their 
untaught  state  ;  and  then  baptizing,  mentioned  afterward  as 
coming  after  believing,  and  not  before  it,  puts  the  matter  beyond 
the  injurious  influence  of  such  quibbling.  In  order  to  make 
this  text  speak  what  the  gentlemen  wish  it  should,  the  order  of 
the  words  ought  to  be  inverted,  thus  :  4  Go  preach  the  gospel 
to  every  creature,  he  that  is  baptized,  and  afterward  belie ves^ 
shall  be  saved ;  but  he  that  believeth  not  shall  be  damned.'  This 
however  needs  no  comment. 

Before  I  dismiss  this  part  it  will  be  proper  to  shew,  that  Mr, 
E.,  in  placing  this  text  as  he  has,  in  cutting  it  in  parts,  to  treat 


92 

it  as  he  says,  logically,  has  made  it  all  in  our  favour,  and  the 
conclusions  he  draws  are  entirely  false.  He  having  given  the 
views  of  Dr.  Walker  on  Mark  xvi.  16.  rather  thought  the 
learned  doctor  did  not  manage  the  text  quite  as  well  as  he  could 
himself ;  and  therefore,  to  exhibit  a  specimen  of  his  talent  at 
handling  the  word  of  God  deceitfully,  instead  of  taking  it 
together,  as  he  ought  to  have  done,  chops  it  up  into  mince-meat, 
with  a  view  of  perplexing  his  readers.  You  shall  have  his  own 
words  :  "  The  Baptists  reason  on  a  part  of  the  text  only,  and 
the  Doctor  reasoned  on  the  whole.  And  to  shew  how  miserably 
fallacious  the  reasoning  of  the  Baptists  is,"  (he  ought  rather  to 
have  said  his  own),  "  I  will  lay  down  a  plan  of  their  logic  on 
this  text,  which  will  produce  more  conclusions  than  there  are 
principal  words  in  that  part  of  the  verse.  Now  as  the  Baptists 
reason,"  (says  he)  "  from  the  order  of  the  words,  I  will  mark 

1  2  3 

them  with  figures — believeth — baptized — saved. 

"  The  logic  is  as  follows  :  Take  the  first  and  second — believ- 
eth— baptized — and  say  with  the  Baptists— 

1.  None  are  to  be  baptized  but  such  as  believe,  because 
believing  must  be  before  baptizing,"  and  then  it  will  be— • 

1  2 

"  believeth— baptized. — This,"  says  he,  u  will  conclude  against 
infant  baptism." — This  conclusion  is  a  just  one. 

"  Next,  take  the  first  and  third — believed — saved— and  say 
in  the  same  way  : 

2.  None  are  to  be  saved,  but  such  as  believe, because  believing 

1  3 

must  be  before  saving. — Believeth — saved. — This  concludes 
against  infant  salvation." 

This  last  conclusion  is  false  ;  for  as  I  proved,  in  answering 
Doctor  Walker's  statement,  of  which  this  is  a  mere  recapitula- 
tion, the  text  has  nothing  to  do  with  infants,  but  only  with 
such  as  should  hear  the  apostles  preaching,  and  thereupon 
receive  or  reject  it :  the  first  were  to  be  baptized  as  an  evidence 
of  their  faith  in  Christ,  and  title  to  promised  salvation ;  the  last 
were  not  to  be  baptized,  but  damnation  was  denounced  against 
them.  Hence,  infants  had  nothing  to  do  with  all  this,  because, 
when  Christ  bid  them  go  and  preach  the  gospel  to  every  crea- 
ture, he  did  not  include  infants  ;  for  they  could  neither  receive 
nor  reject  it,  and  therefore  were  not  to  be  comforted  by  its 
promises,  nor  yet  included  in  its  threatenings  :  but  all  this  was 
true  of  those  to  whom  they  were  sent  to  preach.  If  Mr.  E.  will 
have  this  applied  to  infants  then,  he  makes  infants  as  responsible 
for  a  neglect  of  the  gospel  as  adults  ;  and  fixes  the  cruel  charge 
on  God,  that  he  makes  no  allowance  for  the  natural  incapacity 


93 

of  infants  to  believe,  though  that  incapacity  is  from  himselfi 
Thus  the  falsity  of  this  conclusion  is  expressed. 

His  third  is  thus  :  says  he,  "  Now  take  the  second  and  third 
-—baptized — saved — and  argue  in  the  same  manner  : 

3.  None  are  to  be  saved,  but  such  as  are  baptized,  because 

2  3 

baptizing  must  go  before  saving.     Baptized — saved* 

w  This  will,"  says  he, "  conclude  on  the  side  of  infant  baptism, 
they  must  be  baptized,  or  they  cannot  be  saved." 

This  conclusion  must  be  false,  for  the  same  reasons  that 
were  last  mentioned.  For  if  infants  have  nothing  to  do  with, 
this  text,  which  was  before  proved,  then  the  baptism  mentioned 
here  can  have  nothing  to  do  with  them,  whatever  it  may  have 
to  do  with  others  intended  in  it.  See  my  answer  to  this  part  of 
Mr.  E.'s  logic,  as  he  terms  it,  in  my  observations  on  Doctor 
Walkers  theses,  in  a  preceding  page. 

"  Lastly,"  says  he,  "  take  all  three— ^believeth — baptized — 
saved — and  say  ; 

"  4.  None  are  to  be  saved  but  such  as  believe  and  are  bap- 
tized, because  believing  and  baptizing  must  be  before  saving. — 

1  2  3 

Believeth — baptized- — saved." — He  adds,  "  This  concludes 
against  the  salvation  of  believers  in  Jesus  Christ,  if  they  have 
not  been  baptized.  And  so  upon  the  principles  of  the  Baptists, 
it  concludes  against  the  salvation  of  all  the  Pcedobaptists. 

This  conclusion  is  false  likewise,  and  that  because  in  the  text 
as  repeated,  it  is  not  said,  And  he  that  is  not  baptized  shall  be 
damned,  but  he  that  believeth  not ;  the  word  c  baptize'  being 
wholly  left  out  ;  so  that  while  in  the  last  part  believing  is 
repeated,  and  required  in  order  to  eternal  life,  the  word  baptize 
is  wholly  omitted,  and  baptism  is  not  required  in  order  to 
salvation.  The  art  of  Mr.  E.  here  consisted  in  keeping  out 
of  sight,  all  the  latter  part  of  the  text  entirely ;  and  by  thus 
suppressing  it,  and  taking  away  from  God's  book,  he  wished  to 
establish  his  false  conclusion.  How  impudent  must  the  man 
be  to  say,  as  he  did  in  the  beginning  of  these  remarks  of  his, 
that  the  Baptists  only  reasoned  on  half  of  this  text,  but  he  and 
Doctor  Walker  would  reason  on  the  whole  of  it ;  when  afterward 
he  keeps  the  latter  part  of  the  text  entirely  back,  and  never  says 
any  thing  but  on  the  former  part. 

Reader,  are  not  these  words  in  the  text,  "  And  he  that 
believeth  not  shall  be  damned  r"  Do  you  not  see,  that  the  word 
baptize  is  not  in  this  latter  part,  and  that  it  does  not  say,  he  that 
is  not  baptized  shall  be  damned  ?  Do  you  imagine  that  it  war, 
an  oversight  in  Mr.  E.,  and  that  he  did  not  notice  this  variation 
of  words  in  repeating  of  the  text  ?  Or  if  this  vou  cownot  believe 

N 


(and  indeed  you  cannot),  what  motives  think  you,  could  have 
induced  him  thus  to  triiie  with  the  word  of  God? 

Having  failed  in  the  three  first  arguments,  which  were  adduced 
to  prove,  that  the  requisition  of  faith  and  repentance  in  order  to 
baptism  did  not  apply  to  infants,  Mr.  E.  now  produces  his  fourth 
and  last ;  which  is,  that  there  are  some  general  directions  given 
in  God's  word,  as  to  duty,  which  cannot  include  infants,  but 
must  be  confined  to  adults  only,  though  adults  are  not  distin- 
guished from  infants  in  those  texts.  From  which  he  infers, 
that  infants  may  not  be  intended  in  those  directions  given  about 
baptism,  and  that  faith  and  repentance,  when  required,  ought  to 
be  understood  of  adults  only,  though  not  expressed.  The  subject 
chosen  for  his  fourth  argument  is,  that  of  the  temporal  subsist- 
ence of  infants.  He  affirms,  that  in  some  passages,  if  infants  are 
included,  then  God  has  left  them  to  starvation,  yea,  made  it  their 
duty  to  starve.  His  argument  is,  "  On  the  temporal  subsistence 
of  infants.  As  the  reader  may  perceive  the  drift  of  reasoning, 
on  these  instances,  I  will  use  but  few  words  on  the  present  one. 
Now  that  infants  should  be  supported,  not  only  scripture,  but 
nature  itself  teaches.  And  yet  if  we  form  the  Baptist  argument 
on  a  few  places  of  scripture,  it  may  be  proved,  in  opposition  to 
nature  and  scripture  both,  that  infants  should  actually  be  left  to 
starve."  The  texts  adduced  are,  Isaiah  i.  19.  u  If  ye  be  willing 
and  obedient,  ye  shall  eat  the  good  of  the  land ;"  and  2  Thes, 
iii.  10.  "  If  any  would  not  work,  neither  should  he  eat." 

The  reasonings  from  these  texts  fail,  from  two  considerations* 
The  first  of  which  is,  that  divine  revelation  is  not  addressed  to 
infants  at  all,  nor  do  any  of  its  commands  include  them,  unless 
express  mention  is  made  of  them  by  name,  or  unless  a  whole 
nation  or  the  world  at  large  are  addressed  ;  in  which  case,  they 
are  necessarily  included.  Whenever  there  are  duties  to  be 
performed,  of  which  infants  are  the  subjects,  they  are  expressed ; 
and  then,  the  command  is  not  addressed  to  the  infant  himself, 
but  to  others  concerning  him.  Thus,  when  the  infant  was  to  be 
circumcised,  the  command  was  given  to  the  parent  or  guardian,, 
but  never  to  the  infant.  Apply  this  reasoning,  it  will  stand 
thus :  Where  any  thing  is  enjoined  in  the  word  of  God  as  a 
dutv,  and  infants  are  not  expressed  in  that  injunction,  nor  no 
mention  made  of  it  in  any  other  place  of  scripture  as  being  their 
dutv,  nor  any  direction  given  how  it  is  to  be  done  for  them  ; 
then  it  is  clear,  that  the  precept  has  no  reference  to  them  what- 
ever, but  only  to  such  as  are  immediately  addressed. 

But  who  ever  thought  of  applying  the  text  in  2  Thes.  iii.  10. 
to  infants  ?  If  they  were  church  members,  then  it  did  apply 
to  them,  and  in  that  case  would  carry  all  the  consequences  with 
rt  Mr.  E,  so  much  depi  vcates  j  for  this  charge  was  to  the  whole 


95-  ^ 

church,  and  not  to  a  part  of  them  only.  But  if  they  were  not 
church  members,  then  the  direction  only  respected  such  as  were ; 
and,  in  that  case,  infants  were  left  out.  So  that  in  fact,  it  is 
only  Mr.  E.'s  doctrine  of  infant  church  membership,  which 
makes  that  text  carry  the  consequences  in  it  he  talks  of.  If 
church  members  are  only  such  as  are  united  in  a  profession  of 
faith,  then  the  prohibition  going  to  discourage  an  indolent  life 
in  professors  was  a  seasonable  one,  and  had  nothing  to  do  with 
infants  at  all,  they  never  having  made  any  such  profession ;  and 
they,  not  being  members  of  the  church  of  Thessalonica,  were 
never  contemplated* 

But  such  instructions  concerning  the  temporal  subsistence  of 
infants  will  not  apply  in  this  case,  and  do  wholly  stand  on 
different  ground  from  that  of  infant  baptism  ;  which  will  thus 
appear.  In  the  texts  Mr.  E.  has  quoted,  it  is  true,  there  is  no 
mention  made  that  infants  are  not  intended,  although  evidently 
implied  ;  yet,  in  order  to  make  this  an  argument  in  favour  of 
infant  baptism,  it  ought  to  be  proved  that  there  is  no  precept 
for  infant  subsistence  in  other  texts  ;  for  infant  baptism  and  that 
will  not  be  parallel  cases,  unless  no  more  is  said  about  one 
than  the  other.  It  is  manifest,  that  the  use  Mr.  E.  intends  to 
make  of  these  quotations  is  this  :  That  because  there  are  texts 
containing  directions  concerning  temporal  subsistence,  in  which 
directions  if  infants  are  included,  they  would  go  to  depriving 
them  of  food ;  and  as  God  could  never  authorize  their  starvation, 
they  could  not  be  intended  in  such  places,  though  not  expressly 
excepted.  He  would  infer,  for  like  reasons,  that  where  direc- 
tions are  given  about  faith  and  repentance  in  order  to  baptism, 
so  neither  can  infants  be  intended  in  such  text.  But  what  ruins 
this  conclusion  is,  that  God  has  enjoined  it  as  a  duty  on  parents 
to  take  care  of  infants  ;  while  there  are  no  directions  given  for 
the  baptizing  of  infants  any  where.  Mr.  E.  says,  in  the  texts 
he  quoted,  there  is  no  provision  made  to  subsist  them.  True  : 
but  are  there  no  directions  given  in  other  texts  on  that  head  ?— — 
So  again,  he  admits  there  is  no  command  to  baptize  infants,  in 
those  texts  that  demand  faith  and  repentance.  True,  again  j 
and  is  there  any  such  command  in  any  other  text  ?  Certainly 
not.  Now,  though  passages  requiring  faith  and  repentance  of 
persons  in  order  to  baptism,  do  virtually  exclude  the  baptizing 
of  infants,  because  they  have  them  not ;  yet  if  there  were  other 
texts  commanding  their  baptism,  as  there  are  those  commanding 
the  subsistence  of  infants,  we  should  then  admit  infants  were 
not  intended  in  such  texts  as  require  faith  and  repentance,  as 
well  as  in  those  texts  that  say,  4  he  that  will  not  work  shall  aoi 
•eat.'  To  set  this  forth  clearly,  let  the  following  queries  be 
considered. 


96 

P.  E.  Those  texts  Baptists  bring  to  prove  none  ought  to  he 
baptized  but  such  as  believe  and  repent,  are  not  in  point,  and  do 
not  affect  the  case  of  infants. 

B.  They  certainly  do  exclude  them,  for  they  cannot  believe 
and  repent. 

P.  E.  But  these  texts  only  respect  adults,  and  it  is  right  they 
should  believe  and  repent  before  they  are  baptized ;  but  infants 
are  not  intended,  and  they  may  be  baptized  without  either. 

B.  But  what  reason  have  you  to  believe  that  infants  are  not 
intended  I 

P.  E.  Because  it  is  said,  in  2  Thes.  iii.  10.  "  If  any  would 
not  work,  neither  should  he  eat."  Now,  infants  cannot  work, 
and  if  this  text  means  every  person,  without  exception  ;  then, 
as  infants  cannot  work,  they  must  starve  :  but  I  am  in  duty 
bound  to  infer  this  text  did  not  mean  infants  ;  and,  for  like 
reasons,  I  am  bound  to  believe,  when  faith  and  repentance  are 
required,  it  is  of  adults,  and  not  of  infants. 

B.  But  why  do  you  think  these  are  parallel  cases  ? 

P.  E.  Because  if  the  command  to  believe  and  repent,  excludes 
infants  from  baptism  on  account  of  their  incapacity ;  in  like 
manner,  infants  must  be  left  to  starve,  because  it  is  said,  u  If 
any  man  will  not  work,  he  shall  not  eat.n 

B.  These  two  cases  are  not  parallel. 

P.  E.  Shew  me  wherein. 

B.  When  faith  and  repentance  are  required  of  persons  for 
baptism,  and  those  who  had  them  not  were  refused,  we  must 
apply  those  prohibitions  to  infants  ;  because  there  is  no  where 
any  other  text  that  authorizes  their  baptism.  And  although  the 
text  you  quote  would  seem  to  make  against  the  subsistence  of 
infants,  we  know  that  infants  were  not  implied  in  this  command ; 
yet  not  on  account  of  a  supposed  absurdity  of  it,  which  is  the 
ground  of  your  opinion  ;  but,  because  there  are  other  passages, 
which  enjoin  that  provision  be  made  for  them. 

P.  E.  Where  do  you  find  provision  made  for  infant  subsist- 
ence, that  authorises  you  to  make  the  exception  in  their  favour 
in  this  case. 

B.  In  this  text,  1  Tim.  v.  8.  u  But  if  any  provide  not  for  his 
own,  and  especially  for  those  of  his  own  house,  he  hath  denied 
the  faith,  and  is  worse  than  an  infidel."  Now,  if  you  can  only 
produce  one  text  that  warrants  infant  baptism,  as  plainly  as  this 
does  infant  subsistence,  then  we  will  be  bound  to  admit,  that 
where  faith  and  repentance  are  required,  infants  are  not  affected 
by  the  requisition. 

I  would  now  ask  the  reader,  if  the  reasonings  of  Mr.  E.  art 
BQt  entirely  inapplicable  in  the  present  case  £ 


9? 

Mr.  E.  seems  to  feel  the  weight  of  the  Baptist  argument, 
u  that  faith  and  repentance  were  required  of  all  persons  that 
ever  were  baptized  by  the  apostles  ;"  and  he  labours  more  to 
overthrow  this  than  any  other.  He  says,  (p.  26.)  it  is  false, 
because  against  the  truth.  Thus  :  "  Is  it  a  truth  that  infants 
should  subsist  ?  This  argument  proves  against  it."  How  so, 
sir ;  how  does  the  requiring  express  authority  for  infant  baptism 
prove  that  infants  ought  to  starve  ?  Have  I  not  produced  you 
express  proof,  that  "  he  that  provides  not  for  his  own  house  is 
worse  than  an  infidel  ?"  And  can  you  say,  you  have  any  proof 
like  this  for  infant  baptism  ?  Do,  sir,  give  us  one  solitary  text. 
You  ask,  u  Is  it  a  truth  that  infants  may  be  saved  i"  and  assert, 
that  the  Baptist "  argument  will  prove  the  contrary."  How  does 
this  follow,  sir  ?  Have  we  ever  denied  that  infants  will  be  saved  ? 
And  because  we  demand  express  proof  for  baptism,  does  it 
follow  on  our  principles  that  infants  will  be  lost  ?  Be  not  uneasy, 
sir,  we  think  they  may  be  saved  without  baptism,  and  we  are 
sure  baptism  would  never  bring  them  to  heaven  without  the 
blood  of  Christ.  But  your  uneasiness  seems  to  arise  from  that 
text,  Mark  xvi.  16.  where  you  imagine  believing  and  baptizing 
are  connected,  and  both  made  necessary  to  salvation  ;  so  that 
you  think  it  cruel  in  us  to  deny  baptism  to  infants,  seeing,  as 
you  suppose,  they  must  be  damned  without  it.  But  sir,  this 
text  need  not  give  you  pain  ;  for  it  does  not  say,  he  that  is  not 
baptized,  but  he  that  believeth  ?ioty  shall  be  damned.  How, 
therefore,  does  our  requiring  express  warrant  for  baptism  affect 
the  salvation  of  infants  ? 

But  Mr,  E.  asks,  "  was  Christ  rightly  baptized  ?"  and 
declares,  '  this  cannot  be  if  faith  and  repentance  are  required, 
for  he  had  neither.'  But  had  he  not  that  holiness,  of  which 
faith  and  repentance  in  his  people  is  the  evidence  they  also 
possess,  and  are  therefore  qualified  to  receive  baptism  to  signify 
their  fellowship  with  him  ?  And  was  faith  and  repentance  ever 
demanded  with  any  other  view,  than  to  shew  the  candidate  is 
made  partaker  of  the  divine  nature  ?  2  Pet.  i.  4.  And  if  that 
purity  in  Christ  as  Head  of  the  church,  entitled  him  to  baptism, 
and  faith  and  repentance  are  required  of  his  people  in  order  to 
signify  this  their  union  with  him,  and  their  baptism  (which 
always  is  the  figure  of  holiness)  was  designed  to  evidence  that 
they  were  conformed  to  the  image  of  Christ ;  does  it  follow,  that 
his  baptism  will  justify  persons  being  baptized  who  are  destitute 
of  such  a  principle  of  holiness,  and  who  have  neither  faith  nor 
repentance  to  evidence  a  renovation  of  heart  ?  I  am  confident, 
that  if  Christ's  baptism  is  not  an  example  to  believers,  much  less 
can  it  be  to  unbelievers  :  but  in  making  his  baptism  a  reason  for 
the  baptizing  of  infants  without  faith,  Mr.  E.  makes  it  an  equal 


98 

example  to  justify  the  baptism  of  adults  without  faith.  Certainly, 
the  baptism  of  believers  will  justify  Christ's  baptism  ;  for  if  his 
baptism  was  the  emblem  of  his  perfect  purity,  they  being  like 
him  in  their  new  nature,  have  a  right  to  burial  with  their  common 
Head,  as  evidence  of  their  death  to  sin  ;  but  if  their  baptism 
does  not  justify  Christ's,  it  is  hard  to  see  how  an  infant  pos- 
sessing a  depraved  nature,  can  by  baptism  justify  his. 

But,  Mr.  E.  asks,  "  Were  infants  subjects  of  circumcision  ? 
the  Baptist  argument  proves  they  were  not."  Not  so,  sir,  the 
Baptist  argument  goes  to  prove,  that  where  an  express  command 
is  given  to  any  person,  whether  it  concerns  adult  or  infant,  they 
ought  to  comply  ;  but  iiow  does  this  militate  against  the  circum* 
cision  of  infants  ?  You  know  as  well  as  I  do,  that  there  was  such 
an  express  command  that  Jewish  infants  should  be  circumcised, 
though  you  cannot  furnish  any  thing  like  it  for  infant  baptism  : 
but  is  not  this  acting  deceitfully,  to  associate  the  two  together, 
when  their  circumstances  did  so  widely  differ  ?  But  you  still 
insist  the  Jewish  infant  could  not  believe  and  repent,  no  more 
than  ours  can ;  and  if  infants  must  not  be  baptized  without  faith, 
so  neither  could  they  be  circumcised,  on  such  principles.  Yes, 
sir,  but  you  are  in  too  much  haste  ;  for  faith  and  repentance 
were  never  required  of  a  Jewish  adult  in  order  to  circumcision, 
therefore,  of  course,  it  was  not  required  of  an  infant :  but  you 
do  not  pretend  to  dispute  that  faith  has  been  required  in  order 
to  baptism.  If  so,  what  strange  logic  is  this?  Of  a  Jew,  faith 
and  repentance  were  never  required  in  order  to  circumcision, 
whether  he  were  an  adult  or  an  infant ;  and  therefore,  if  the 
Baptists  require  faith  and  repentance  as  qualifiations  for  baptism, 
in  doing  this,  they  deny  a  Jewish  infant  a  right  to  circumcision, 
for  want  of  faith.  So  then,  demanding  faith  where  it  is  required, 
is,  it  seems,  a  denying  the  right  of  an  ordinance,  where  no  such 
demands  were  ever  made. 

It  remains  for  Mr.  E's  readers  to  put  his  premises  and 
conclusions  together  as  wTell  as  they  can,  but  it  will  be  utterly 
out  of  their  power  to  reconcile  such  contradictions  ;  and  we 
have  only  to  add,  that  when  he  says  the  requisition  of  faith  and 
repentance  does  in  the  case  of  baptism,  establish  falsehood,  we 
set  him  at  defiance  to  prove  it. 

Mr.  E.  now  declares,  that  he  will  point  out  wherein  the 
fallacy  of  the  Baptist  argument  consists,  which  is,  that  in  requir- 
ing faith  and  repentance  in  order  to  baptism,  we  bring  more 
into  the  conclusion,  than  was  in  the  premises.  In  page  26,  he 
says,  "  But  to  make  it  yet  more  evident  what  that  fault  is,  of 
which  it  is  guilty,  I  will  take  the  liberty  of  saying  a  few  words 
more.  That  particular  rule,  against  which  this  argument  offends, 
is  this  :  there  should  not  be  more  in  the  conclusion  than  was  in 


99 

die  premises.*'  He  then  produces  his  proof  that  we  thus  do, 
which  we  shall  now  examine.  He  says  when  we  produce  such 
scriptures,  u  repent  and  be  baptized,"  and,  u  if  thou  believest 
thou  mayest,"  that  then  our  address  is  really  in  scripture  mean- 
ing to  adults ;  but  we  offend  against  the  above  mentioned  rule, 
by  bringing  infants  into  the  conclusion. — For  this  however,  you 
have  only  Mr.  E.'s  word  that  adults  cnly  are  intended.  We 
have  looked  for  some  text  of  scripture  from  him  to  prove  that 
two  administrations  of  this  ordinance,  and  two  kind  of  subjects 
did  exist ;  but  where  have  we  been  answered  in  this  ? 

To  justify  such  a  statement  as  he  gives,  there  are  but  two 
kinds  of  evidence  that  would  have  been  in  point,  and  those  are, 
either  the  practice  of  the  apostles,  or  some  declaration  of  theirs 
on  the  subject;  neither  of  which  has  he  pretended  to,  and  which 
I  mav,  with  confidence  say,  he  cannot  furnish.  The  proofs  of 
his  correctness  would  be  these  :  Had  one  instance  been  recorded 
any  where  of  John,  Christ,  or  the  apostles,  having  baptized  the 
infant  offspring  of  any  person  whatever  :  or  had  there  been  one 
single  word  in  the  New  Testament  declarative  of  this,  that  when 
such  prohibitory  language  was  used,  infants  were  not  included, 
but  that  it  respected  persons  grown  up  to  maturity  only ;  in  that 
case,  Mr.  E.'*  classification  of  infants  and  adults  would  have 
been  just,  and  his  inference  a  natural  one. 

If  he  has  attempted  to  furnish  proof  of  this,  it  is  not  by 
referring  you  to  either  of  the  above,  but  to  the  circumcising  of 
Jewish  infants — the  baptism  of  Christ — the  salvation  or  misery 
of  infants — infant  subsistence,  from  which  he  has  laboured  to 
prove,  by  much  sophistry,  that  if  the  requisition  of  faith  and 
repentance  is  not  confined  to  adults,  the  circumcising  of  Jewish 
infants  was  wrong — that  Christ  was  not  rightly  baptized — that 
infants  must  be  damned — that  infants  must  be  left  to  starve. 
Now  in  all  this  he  has  failed,  as  you  see  by  my  refutation  of  his 
assertions ;  and  having  failed  in  these,  the  whole  of  the  evidence 
that  he  could  bring  in  support  of  the  sentiment  that  faith  and 
repentance  was  only  required  of  adults,  is  gone.  I  have,  indeed, 
proved,  that  all  his  reasonings  on  the  four  points  here  referred 
to,  had  no  bearing  whatever  on  the  question,  and  that  not  one 
of  the  difficulties  would  follow,  which  he  insisted  would  be  the 
result  thereof. 

But  that  infants  were  indeed  included  in  the  prohibition,  will 
appear  thus :  Baptism  was  never  intended  to  be  a  mean  of  grace, 
but  a  sign  of  fellowship  with  Christ  in  his  death,  burial,  resur- 
rection ;  and  of  course  could  only  be  administered  to  such  as  in 
reality  enjoyed  that  fellowship.  Now,  as  it  is  only  by  faith  and 
repentance,  and  other  christian  graces,  such  an  union  with  him 
can  be  proved  ;  ^lerefore  infants  were  not  suitable  subjects, 


100 

forasmuch  as  they  were  not  able  to  give  any  evidence  of  such 
an  union.  Baptism  was  also  designed  to  set  forth  the  withdraw- 
ment  of  the  person  from  the  world,  his  solemn  renunciation  of 
it,  and  that  he  was  a  servant  of  Christ ;  therefore  of  course 
infants  could  not  be  the  subjects  of  it,  because,  by  faith  and 
.repentance  only  can  a  person  make  it  appear  that  he  has  re- 
nounced the  world — that  he  is  a  servant  of"  Christ. 

Baptism  was  designed  to  set  forth  that  the  subject  is  born 
again,  and  intends  to  walk  in  newness  of  life :  but  an  infant 
cannot  make  it  so  appear;  and  even  if  they  are  actually  renewed 
by  the  Spirit,  the  possibility  of  which  we  do  not  doubt,  yet 
they  are  not  able  to  furnish  the  evidence  of  such  a  change,  and 
therefore  are  necessarily  included  in  the  prohibition.  Besides, 
our  opponents  do  not  pretend  to  say  all  infants  are  renewed,  but 
only  such  of  them  as  die  in  infancy  ;  and  as  we  cannot  tell  which 
of  them  will  die  in  infancy,  or  which  of  them  are  regenerated, 
it  plainly  follows,  that  incapacity  to  give  the  requisite  informa- 
tion must  include  them  in  the  prohibition.  But  if  infants  are 
to  be  baptized  generally,  and  baptism  is  a  sign  of  death  to  sin, 
and  union  with  Christ,  then  (as  Mr.  E.  modestly  affirms  in 
another  place)  their  baptism  would  be  a  sign  of  a  lie  in  thousands 
of  instances  ;  for  these  young  baptized  disciples  do  afterwards 
prove  that  Christ  has  had  no  fellowship  with  them.  Our  oppo- 
nents do  as  did  Herod,  who,  to  make  sure  of  Christ's  death, 
ordered  all  the  babes  in  Bethlehem  to  be  slain  :  so  they,  to  make 
sure  of  baptizing  little  infant  believers,  hesitate  not  to  baptize 
all  who  come  within  their  reach. 

Again,  the  church  of  Christ  is  so  constructed,  that  the  duties 
it  enjoins,  and  the  privileges  it  affords,  are  entirely  out  of  the 
reach  of  infants,  so  that  they  neither  can  perform  the  one,  nor 
yet  enjoy  the  other  ;  therefore,  baptism  being  a  prerequisite  to 
church  fellowship,  it  follows  that  infants  are  included  in  the 
prohibition,  when  faith  and  repentance  are  required  of  the 
subjects  of  gospel  baptism.  Now  what  has  Mr.  E.  offered  to 
overthrow  all  these  ?  Has  he  offered  any  scripture  evidence  to 
shew  that  adults  only  were  intended  in  the  prohibition  ?  and  if 
not,  is  his  word  sufficient  to  outweigh  all  this  evidence,  deduced 
immediately  from  the  scriptures  ? 

How  then  has  he  made  it  appear  that  adults  only  were  in  the 
premises,  and  that  we  have  brought  infants  in  the  conclusion, 
and  therefore  have  offended  against  the  rule  he  mentions?  The 
premises  are,  "  If  thou  believest  thou  mayest — Repent  and  be 
baptized."  There  is  as  evidently  as  the  sun  shines  this  emplied, 
that  without  faith,  without  repentance,  the  party  would  not  be 
accepted.  Is  it  not  evident,  therefore,  that  such  as  have  not 
faith  and  repentance  are  in  the  conclusion  \    Our  opponents 


101 

admit  that  infants  do  labour  under  a  natural  incapacity  to  believe, 
and  others  of  them  under  a  moral,  as  well  as  a  natural  one  ;  and 
if  so,  how  could  Mr.  E.  have  the  effrontery  to  say  we  place 
more  in  the  conclusion  than  was  in  the  premises  ?  And  how 
could  he  affirm,  that  we  offend  against  the  rule  above  mentioned ; 
yea,  rather,  is  it  not  manifest  that  we  strictly  conform  to  it. 

Mr.  E.  does  but  repeat  his  argument  against  faith  and  repent- 
ance, as  pre-requisites  to  baptism,  over  and  over ;  and  although, 
in  refuting  his  theses,  which  has  been  amply  done,  we  have 
answered  his  book  ;  yet,  we  are  subjected  to  the  stale  work  of 
repetition  in  the  following  of  him,  and  in  this  last  notice  of 
him  I  do  but  expose  an  argument  already  refuted,  and  repeat 
reasoning  already  offered.  To  this  I  am  compelled,  and  that 
because  Mr.  E.  has  but  varied  the  order  of  his  argument, 
without  adding  any  thing  to  its  strength.  My  business  is  to 
shew  how  the  reasonings  already  advanced  will  meet  his  argu- 
ment, in  every  possible  shape.  He  says,  page  27,  that  if  we 
will  have  infants  in  the  premises,  when  faith  and  repentance  are 
required  in  order  to  baptism,  then  they  must  be  in  the  premises 
when  faith  is  required  to  salvation,  and  also  when  it  is  said  a 
man  must  work  or  not  eat ;  and  then,  if  the  first  conclusion  is, 
they  must  not  be  baptized,  the  second  will  be,  they  must  not 
be  saved,  and  the  third  will  be,  they  must  starve  ;  for  he  affirms 
the  two  last  conclusions  are  as  necessary  and  natural  as  the  first* 
I  will  undertake  to  prove,  that  they  are  in  the  premises  in  the 
first  instance,  but  are  not  so  in  the  two  last. 

I  do  this  by  one  simple  argument;  which  is,  That  when 
faith  and  repentance  are  required  in  order  for  baptism,  they 
(infants)  are  manifestly  in  the  premises,  although  they  have 
not  these  qualifications ;  because  there  is  no  clause  in  those 
texts  which  require  them,  nor  yet  in  any  other  text ;  nor  yet 
any  example  to  the  reverse,  to  shew  that  unbelieving  infants 
are  excepted  out  of  this  general  rule  :  for  we  are  bound  to  take 
the  rule  in  its  utmost  extent,  where  there  is  no  such  exception. 
But  this  does  not  hold  good  in  the  last  two  conclusions.  For 
when  faith  is  required  to  salvation,  we  know  that  infants  are  not: 
included,  as  other  scriptures  inform  us  that  such  as  die  in  their 
infancy  are  in  the  kingdom  of  God.  In  like  manner,  we  know 
that  infants  are  not  in  the  premises  or  conclusion  when  it  is  said, 
"  He  that  will  not  work  shall  not  eat ff  because,  in  other  texts 
it  is  asserted,  that  if  u  a  man  will  not  provide  for  his  own  house 
he  is  worse  than  an  infidel."  Now,  though  it  should  not  appear 
from  the  texts  themselves,  that  infants  are  not  in  the  premises 
and  conclusions,  vet  other  texts  do  prove  they  were  not.  Now 
brethren,  you  see  on  what  widely  different  ground  these  things 
stand. 

O 


102 

You  will  see,  reader,  that  in  every  part  of  Mr.E.'s  book  which 
I  have  answered,  he  has  laboured  hard  to  establish  two  points ;  to 
wit:  That  express  or  explicit  scripture  warrant,  is  not  necessary 
to  inform  us  what  ordinances  God  has  left  to  be  observed  in  his 
church  ;  and  also,  wherever  any  scriptures  are  found  that  speak 
of  the  mode  and  subjects  of  baptism,  that  such  passages  have  no 
bearing  on  the  subject  in  dispute,  and  prove  nothing  for  or 
against  infant  baptism.  The  methods  he  has  taken  to  accomplish 
these  objects,  reflect  more  honour  on  his  talents,  than  on  the 
goodness  of  his  heart ;  and  you  will  easilv  see,  that  he  has 
availed  himself  more  of  the  cunning  and  quibbling  of  a  lawyer, 
than  the  candour  of  a  christian.  When  we  behold  men  studi- 
ously avoid  touching  a  difficulty  in  controversy,  and  misrepre- 
senting the  arguments  of  an  opponent,  either  by  taking  the 
weakest  of  them,  or  keeping  back  part  of  a  sentence  ;  what  are 
we  to  gather  from  such  conduct,  but  that  the  person  is  not  an 
honest  man,  and  really  intends  to  deceive  ?  This  has,  indeed, 
been  the  proceeding  of  the  gentleman.  It  does  not  require  much 
discernment  to  see  that  he  was  unfriendly  to  Mr.  Booth  as  a 
man,  and  yet  he  wished  to  conceal  his  displeasure  under  the 
guise  of  zeal  for  God's  honour.  In  one  part  of  his  performance, 
he  represents  him  as  a  fool,  and  what  he  has  been  pleased  to 
quote  out  of  his  book  would  justify  the  charge  :  but  afterward 
he  says,  Mr.  Booth  is  an  "  artful  man  and  writes  with  caution" 
If  so,  it  seems  he  kept  back  such  specimens  of  art  as  he  might 
have  exhibited  from  his  book,  and  chose  to  confront  those  parts 
of  his  work  that  he  represented  as  destitute  of  argument,  or 
which  he  could  readily  turn  into  ridicule.  This,  then,  fixes 
indelibly  the  charge  of  dishonesty  and  a  want  of  candour  on 
himself. 

The  only  chance  he  had  of  defeating  the  Baptists,  was  to 
deprive  them  of  those  scriptures  wherein  baptism  is  set  forth, 
and  not  to  suffer  us  to  use  them  in  debate.  He  well  knew,  that 
for  infant  baptism  there  was  not  to  be  found  even  one  solitary 
text;  and  to  meet  the  Baptists  on  such  unequal  ground,  when 
they  had  hundreds  at  command,  this  he  could  not  think  of.  At 
length  he  fell  upon  the  method  of  making  two  baptisms,  one  as 
peculiar  to  adults,  and  the  other  as  belonging  exclusively  to 
infants  ;  and  then  had  the  profanity  to  affirm,  that  all  the  texts 
which  mentioned  baptism  only  applied  to  adults.  His  next 
business  was,  to  persuade  us  that  he  would  not  contend  about 
adult  baptism  with  us,  and  that  he  was  entirely  of  the  same  mind 
with  the  Baptists  on  that  head  ;  and  under  pretence  of  the 
irksomeness  of  repeating  things  in  which  both  parties  were 
agreed,  (as  he  affirmed  they  were)  he  asks  the  Baptists  to  be 
silent  on  ail  these  texts  where  baptism  is  mentioned.     It  seems 


103 

wonderful  indeed,  that  he  could  find  courage  to  silence  the 
scriptures  in  this  manner,  and  to  render  the  examples  of  Christ 
and  his  apostles  of  no  use. 

Knowing  that  express  proof  would  be  required  of  him  by  the 
Ikiptists,  in  support  of  infant  sprinkling,  he  seemed  to  be  greatly 
disquieted  on  that  account ;  and  especially  as  he  knew  there 
was  abundance  of  such  proof  on  the  opposite  side.  To  evade 
this,  he  dextrously  introduces  the  question  concerning  female 
communion,  charges  us  with  admitting  the  practice  when  there 
is  no  express  warrant  for  it  in  the  word  ;  and  then,  taking  for 
granted  what  he  had  said,  and  without  offering  a  shadow  of 
evidence  in  support  of  it,  he  very  gravely  tells  the  Baptists  to 
be  quiet  about  express  warrant ;  for,  as  they  were  wrong  them- 
selves, they  must  tolerate  his  error.  In  this  business,  he  does 
not  answer  the  best  arguments  of  the  Baptists  on  that  question, 
but  produces  the  answers  of  some  silly  person  whom  he  had 
taken  in,  and  then  amuses  himself  not  a  little  in  misrepresenting 
Mr.  Booth,  and  using  indecent  railing  against  him*  without 
any  provocation.  Fearing,  however,  that  the  Baptists  would 
not  make  a  compromise  with  him  about  express  warrant,  in 
order  to  avail  themselves  of  his  consent  to  retain^  female 
communion  ;  he  then  produces  four  questions,  relating  to 
circumcision — the  baptism  of  Christ — salvation  of  infants — and 
subsistence  of  infants  ;  in  which  he  has  used  not  a  little  labour 
to  bewilder  his  reader,  and  by  false  statements  to  confound  him. 
He  tries  to  make  out  here,  that  the  requiring  of  faith  and 
repentance,  would  be  a  denial  of  all  the  four  last  mentioned  ; 
and  thus  under  colour  of  making  the  scriptures  agree  with 
themselves,  he  insists  we  are  not  to  take  those  passages  which 
speak  of  baptism  in  a  strict  sense,  but  are  to  infer  from  them 
something  which  they  obviously  do  not  mean. 

I  feel  no  reluctance  in  owning,  that  Mr.  E.  is  equal  in 
disingenuousness  and  cunning,  to  any  man  that  I  have  ever 
read  ;  and  that  there  is  an  ease  and  delusiveness  in  his  manner 
of  writing,  that  makes  him  a  dangerous  writer  to  such  as  are 
not  acquainted  with  the  little  arts  of  schoolmen.  He  appears, 
however,  to  have  kept  back  with  design  many  things,  which  he 
knew  would  have  borne  hard  on  him  ;  and  in  his  quotations  of 
the  sacred  text,  he  has,  in  Mark  xvi.  16.  kept  out  of  sight  a 
material  part  of  it,  which  would  have  shewn  at  once,  that  infants 
were  not  contemplated  by  it.  Leaving  Mr.  E.  to  the  harrowings 
of  his  own  conscience,  which  I  doubt  not  he  feels,  for  having 
with  too  evident  a  design  cast  contempt  on  the  authority  of  the 
scriptures  ;  I  shall  only  add,  that  I  may  with  confidence  appeal 
to  the  reader  to  decide  where  the  truth  lies. 


104 

I  now  come  to  what  Mr.  E.  calls  his  real  proof  that  infants  are 
to  be  baptized  ;  and  what  will  very  much  surprise  the  reader  is, 
that  he  does  not  pretend  to  one  command,  or  one  example  for  it ; 
but  depends  entirely  on  inferences  drawn  from  certain  texts  in 
its  support.  Can  any  one  after  this  think  his  aversion  to  explicit 
warrant  strange  ?  This  proof  is  contained  in  his  second  argu- 
ment, and  second  chapter.  His  argument  is,  M  The  church 
membership  of  infants  was  never  set  aside  by  God  or  man  ;  but 
continues  in  force,  under  the  sanction  of  God,  to  the  present 
day."  This  argument  is  a  deduction  from  one  which  precedes 
it,  that  u  God  has  constituted  in  his  church  the  membership  of 
infants,  and  admitted  them  to  it  by  a  religious  rite."  Had  Mr. 
E.  made  it  appear  that  what  he  calls  the  Jewish  church,  was 
made  up  of  such  materials,  and  were  to  perform  the  same 
spiritual  duties  as  are  enjoined  on  a  gospel  church,  he  would 
have  done  something  to  purpose.  It  can  answer  no  end  to  spend 
time  in  proving  that  infants  were  members  of  the  Jewish 
commonwealth,  when  it  is  well  known  we  do  not  deny  it :  but 
the  question  to  be  discussed  is,  whether  what  he  calls  the  Jewish 
church,  was  such  a  church  as  is  described  in  the  New  Testament. 
After  we  have  granted  him  that  infants  were  therein,  and  that 
certain  things  were  enjoined  concerning  some  of  them,  by  much 
the  greater  part  of  his  work  is  still  to  be  done  ;  and  that  is,  to 
tell  us  what  those  duties  were  that  God  enjoined  on  them,  and 
what  those  are  he  requires  of  church  members  under  the 
gospel ;  and  then  make  it  appear  that  in  both  cases  they  are  the 
same.  For,  if  duties  are  required  of  the  members  of  a  gospel 
church,  that  never  could  be  performed  by  a  natural  man,  much 
less  by  an  infant ;  (while  this  was  not  the  case  with  the  Jew, 
who  was  united  to  the  Old  Testament  church),  then  all  his 
attempts  to  prove  the  continuance  of  the  Jewish  church  fail,  and 
the  membership  of  infants  vanishes.  This  one  observation  is  a 
sufficient  answer  to  all  he  has  advanced,  as  it  will  appear  on  the 
Very  first  view,  that  the  two  institutions  are  entirely  dissimilar 
to  each  other.   The  diiference  will  be  pointed  out  presently. 

Mr.  E.'s  definition  of  a  church  is,  that  it  is  "  a  sociey  that  stands 
in  special  relation  to  God,  instituted  for  religious  purposes. — 
When  the  persons  composing  this  society  appear  openly  in  such 
relation  to  God,  it  is  called  a  visible  church."  All  that  is  here 
said  if  true,  rests  on  the  words  special  relation  to  God ;  and  here 
a  question  occurs,  Did  every  member  of  that  church,  or  did 
every  Jew,  (for  all  such  were  members,  and  that  by  divine 
appointment)  stand  in  that  spiritual  relation  to  God,  which  a 
member  of  a  -ospel  church  does,  he  having  entered  therein  by 
divine  direction  ?  Did  God,  in  the  organization  of  the  gospel 


105 

church,  make  it  lawful  for  persons  void  of  grace  to  become 
members,  and  do  they  stand  in  the  same  relation  to  him  that 
others  do,  who  are  spiritual  persons  I  In  the  Jewish  consti- 
tution, eveiy  person  therein,  whatever  might  be  his  character, 
stood  in  that  relation  to  God,  be  it  what  it  might,  which  he 
intended  in  its  organization.  I  therefore  contend,  that  in  a 
spiritual  relation  to  him  they  did  not  stand  as  a  body  ;  though, 
no  doubt,  many  of  them  did  :  and  though  the  relation  the  Jews- 
stood  in  to  him  was  a  special  one,  it  was  only  in  a  national  sense. 
Several  reasons  induced  Jehovah  to  choose  Abraham's  poste- 
rity, and  to  make  them  a  favoured  nation  in  distinction  from  all 
others ;  and  these  were,  1.  That  from  them  the  Messiah  was  to 
come.  2.  The  prophets  and  sacred  writers  were  to  originate 
from  them,  that  by  such  means  the  sacred  scriptures  might 
gradually  progress,  until  completed ;  that  thereby  both  the  elect 
among  them,  and  afterward  from  among  the  gentile  nations, 
might  be  instructed  in  the  mysteries  of  redemption.  3.  That 
the  genealogies  of  that  nation  being  regularly  kept,  when  the 
Messiah  should  come  he  might  be  certainly  known ;  which  never 
could  have  been,  without  such  a  national  distinction. 

To  effect  these  great  ends,  it  was  his  pleasure  to  separate 
them  from  all  other  nations — to  become  their  temporal  prince — 
and,  in  the  enacting  of  laws  for  their  government,  he  incorpo- 
rated those  of  a  religious  nature  among  their  civil  institutions  ; 
by  which  means  they,  in  obeying  them  as  a  nation,  would 
acknowledge  his  government  over  them  as  such,  and  at  the  same 
time  his  dear  people  that  were  among  them  would  be  instructed 
in  the  great  plan  of  salvation.  Their  religious  rites  being,  with 
others  of  a  civil  nature,  the  test  of  their  obedience  to  God  as  a 
temporal  prince,  he  rewarded  them  for  their  fidelity  with  national 
mercies,  and  punished  their  disobedience  by  temporal  and 
national  calamities.  It  must  be  obvious  to  any  person  who  has 
read  the  Old  Testament  with  attention,  that  the  punishments 
awarded  and  denounced,  both  by  Moses  and  the  prophets,  against 
the  Jewish  nation,  were  of  a  temporal  kind  ;  and  when  inflicted, 
consisted  in  '  blasting — mildew — caterpillar — locust — drought 
— pestilence — raising  up  of  national  enemies — destruction  by 
the  sword — long  captivities  :'  while  it  is  equally  evident,  that 
but  little,  if  any  thing,  is  said  in  the  threatenings  of  the  prophets 
about  the  torments  of  the  damned.  In  directions  given  to 
punish,  it  is  by  inflicting  death  in  one  way  or  other,  or  delivering 
them  over  into  the  hand  of  enemies.  When  promises  are  made  to 
encourage  obedience,  they  uniformlv  relate  to  national  prosperity; 
as,  c  victory  over  enemies — plentiful  harvests — that  their  cattle 
should  be  plentiful — inhabitants  of  the  land  should  be  thrust  out 
before  them — wild  beasts  should  not  multiplv — that  their  land 


106 

should  not  cast  them  out.'  Circumcision,  which  was  a  mark  of 
distinction  whereby  they  were  separated  from  other  nations, 
being  a  mark  in  theflesh,was  indeed  to  show,  that  the  distinction 
between  them  and  other  nations,  was  but  a  mere  fleshly  distinc- 
tion, as  it  related  to  the  body  at  large. 

For  the  keeping  of  the  sacred  books  incorrupt,  the  great 
advantages  of  which  may  be  readily  comprehended — for  the 
keeping  of  genealogies  incorrupt,  whereby  the  Messiah  should 
be  known — for  the  upholding  of  the  ceremonial  worship,  which 
was  for  the  time  being  designed  to  instruct  the  elect  in  the  way 
of  salvation,  until  the  perfect  dispensation  of  the  gospel  should 
commence,  when  these  things  should  no  longer  be  taught  hy 
types,  but  every  thing  unfolded  with  precision  ;  for  these  pur- 
poses was  the  Jewish  nation  selected,  a  land  given  to  them,  and 
they  rewarded  for  doing  this,  with  mere  temporal  mercies  ;  but 
when  these  things  were  accomplished,  God  had  no  further  use 
for  them  as  a  nation,  and  accordingly  suffered  them  to  be 
scattered  over  the  world,  and  lie  neglected.  Thus,  while  it  is 
denied  that  the  Jews  as  a  nation,  stood  in  a  special  relation  to 
God  in  a  spiritual  sense  ;  yet  this  was  not  the  case  with  all ;  for 
all  the  elect  being  called  in  due  time  by  grace,  enjoyed  the 
adoption  of  children,  yet  these  were  hidden  among  the  great 
body,  and  in  no  way  were  they  to  be  distinguished  from  them 
by  any  outward  special  privileges.  It  is  easily  seen  how  much 
all  this  differs  from  a  gospel  church,  where  there  are  no  temporal 
rewards  promised  for  obedience,  nor  yet  any  temporal  punish- 
ments for  disobedience  ;  (or  these  are  but  in  special  cases)  and 
where  God  does  not  admit  of  carnal  descent  to  build  it  up  with, 
but  forbids  absolutely  all  unrenewed  persons  to  unite  therewith. 

Mr.  E.  says  in  page  40,  there  is  a  "  sameness  of  the  church 
state  among  the  gentiles,  with  that  among  the  Jews,"  and  a 
change  of  institutes  he  contends,  page  39,  "  will  in  itself  produce 
no  more  alteration  in  the  members  of  the  church,  than  a  change 
in  a  man's  diet  will  destroy  the  idenity  of  the  man."  From  these 
quotations,  we  find  that  he  makes  the  gospel  church,  as  to  its 
members,  to  be  precisely  what  the  Jewish  church  was  ;  and  he 
says,  the  gospel  church  is  nothing  more  than  the  man  appearing- 
in  new  cloaths. 

If  this  definition  is  true,  he  has  hereby,  in  the  most  explicit 
manner,  cut  off  all  females  from  membership  in  the  gospel 
church;  for  he  says,  page  33,  that  circumcision  is,  u  a  public 
entering  into  church  fellowship."  If  it  was  by  circumcision 
persons  entered  into  the  church,  then  females  were  never  in  it ; 
and  if  the  church  is  the  same  under  the  gospel,  of  course  females 
cannot  be  admitted  therein.  But  Mr.  E.  tries  to  avoid  the 
dilemma  by  saying  in  page  41,  "females  were  added  to  the 


lor 

gospel  church  by  the  express  order  of  God.3'  Here  he  forgets 
all  he  had  advanced  about  female  communion,  when  he  denied 
they  had  any  warrant  for  it :  but  now  he  not  only  admits  that 
females  were  in  the  gospel  church,  but  says  it  was  by  express 
order  of  God  \  This  overthrows  all  his  reasonings  about  express 
warrant  not  being  in  the  scriptures  for  such  a  practice.  How 
is  this,  sir  ;  is  your  memory  so  short,  that  you  cannot  write  a 
few  pages  without  contradicting  yourself?  You  must  have 
urged  what  is  untrue  either  here,  or  in  another  part  of  your 
book  ;  for  females  cannot  be  members,  and  non-members  at  the 
same  time.  Or  have  you,  sir,  been  convinced,  and  are  we  to 
take  this  for  a  recantation  ?  But  here  again  there  is  a  contra- 
diction ;  for  he  tells  us,  page  32,  that  it  was  an  "  unaltered 
constitution ;"  and,  page  39,  that  all  the  change  was  in  what 
related  to  ceremonial  rites,  which  he  says  "  produces  no  more 
alteration  in  the  members  of  the  church,  than  a  change  in  a 
man's  diet,  will  destroy  the  identity  of  the  man." 

This  is  a  heap  of  contradictions,  and  it  appears  that  he  says, 
and  unsays,  in  the  same  breath,  as  it  may  best  suit  him.  If 
infants  are  to  be  members  of  the  gospel  church,  and  it  is  to  be 
according  to  its  model,  the  Jewish  commonwealth ;  then,  for 
fear  infants  should  be  left  out,  he  vehemently  affirms  that  it  is 
an  unaltered  constitution.  But  if  the  subject  is  varied,  and  the 
question  is  the  extent  of  the  gospel  church,  Oh,  then  to  be  sure, 
something  more  has  taken  place  than  a  change  of  cloatlis,  and 
he  at  last  discovers  that  there  is  a  supplement  to  the  old  Jewish 
law,  by  which  females  are  annexed  to  the  church.  After  all, 
then-,  this  Jewish  model  is  no  model  at  all ;  it  is  a  mere  nose 
of  wax,  which  is  made  to  bend  any  way  that  will  suit  the 
gentleman's  convenience.  Females  will  now  see  through  this 
pretended  asserter  of  their  privileges,  and  not  suffer  themselves 
to  be  imposed  on  by  a  man  who,  under  pretence  of  vindicating 
female  communion,  was  only  addressing  himself  to  their  pre- 
judices. 

Mr.  E.  vindicates  the  membership  of  Jewish  infants  by 
the  promise  made  to  Abraham,  a  I  will  be  a  God  unto  thee,  and 
to  thy  seed  after  thee."  If  this  is  the  warrant,  and  by  the  seed 
is  meant  his  natural  posterity,  then  indeed  females  were  in  the 
Jewish  church,  unless  Mr.  E.  would  deny  them  to  be  the  seed 
of  Abraham  ;  and  if  this  is  the  case,  (which  it  surely  must,  if 
the  scripture  just  quoted  is  that  on  which  he  relies)  then  they 
did  not  become  members  by  circumcision,  and  of  course,  his 
beautiful  type  of  baptism  is  entirely  lost,  and  his  reasoning  from 
analogy  is  foolishness.  And  if  what  he  says  is  true  that  circum- 
cision was  a  "  token  that  God  would  be  a  God  to  Abraham  and 
his  seed,"  and  this  promise  related  to  things  purely  spiritual ; 


108 

it  will  follow,  that  the  females  had  no  interest  in  God  as  their 
God — no  hope  of  salvation  from  him  ! — must  be  lost,  and  all 
spiritual  blessings  belong  to  the  males  exclusively.  If  any  thing 
more  is  necessary  to  represent  in  its  true  colours  the  absurdity 
of  Poedobaptist  views  concerning  Abraham's  covenant,  I  am 
much  mistaken  ;  for  by  it  females  were  shut  out  of  the  church, 
and  excluded  from  heaven,  our  opponents  having  declared 
Abraham's  covenant  to  be  the  covenant  of  grace, 

Mr.  E.  seems  to  be  very  much  offended  with  Mr.  Booth,  on 
account  of  his  having  denominated  circumcision  "  a  token  of 
interest  in  temporal  blessings — a  sign  of  carnal  descent :"  but 
declares,  that  it  was  a  "  sign  of  regeneration — a  seal  of  the 
righteousness  of  faith."  That  it  was  a  sign  of  regeneration  in 
a  typical  sense  will  not  be  disputed  ;  but  surely,  Mr.  E.  will  not 
pretend  it  was  a  sign  that  the  party  was  regenerated  who  received 
it ;  for  in  that  case,  the  gentleman's  charity  would  be  excessive, 
and  in  open  hostility  with  the  rest  of  his  book,  where  we  must 
own  it  is  very  scarce  ;  and  to  use  his  own  modest  language,  u  it 
would  be  the  sign  of  a  lie  to  many  of  the  circumcised  Israelites.'* 
And  in  like  manner,  it  was  a  "  seal  or  token  of  the  righteousness 
of  faith,  which  Abraham  had  being  yet  uncircumcised ;"  but  to 
to  the  Jews  in  general  it  was  no  such  seal ;  for,  as  the  prophet 
rightly  observes  of  many,  they  were  "  children  in  whom  there 
was  no  faith."  That  it  was  a  token  of  interest  in  the  privileges 
peculiar  unto  the  Jewish  nation  is  clear,  Mr.  E.'s  assertion  to 
the  contrary  notwithstanding  ;  for  a  Jew  not  circumcised  was 
to  be  cut  off  from  his  people,  and  it  is  well  known  that  without 
being  circumcised,  a  stranger  had  no  right  to  partake  of  the 
passover.  But  I  think  it  was  but  playing  with  words  when  he 
says,  that  if  circumcision  was  a  mark  of  distinction,  "  then  it 
was  a  distinction  that  did  not  distinguish  ;"  for  surely,  Mr.  E. 
is  not  ignorant  of  the  fact,  that  the  Jews  are  frequently  called  the 
circumcised  to  distinguish  them  from  other  nations  :  "  Lest  the 
daughters  of  the  uncircumcised  should  triumph,"  2  Sam.  i.  20. 
It  is  saying  nothing,  to  inform  us  that  Ishmael  was  circumcised, 
especially  when  it  is  known  he  was  the  son  of  Abraham,  and 
though  in  that  case  his  circumcision  did  not  entitle  him  to  the 
temporal  blessings  alluded  to,  he  being  born  of  Hagar  ;  yet,  had 
his  posterity  been  incorporated  with  the  Jews,  they  would,  as 
circumcised  proselytes,  have  shared  the  blessings  peculiar  to 
that  people. 

Mr.  E.  cannot  rest  without  having  granted  to  him,  that 
circumcision  was  the  door  into  the  church,  and  baptism  is  now 
in  the  place  of  it ;  in  this  he  is  followed  by  the  pamphlet  we 
noticed.  If  it  was  the  door  into  the  church,  and  baptism  has 
^ome  in  its  place,  the  cl^or  was  a  very  narrow  one  indeed  \  so 


I 


109 

much  so,  that  it  would  not  admit  females  into  the  church.  We 
need  not  wonder  therefore,  that  he  denied  them  a  place  at  the 
Lord's  table,  when  they  could  not  enter  in  the  door.  Let  us 
hear  no  more  of  charity,  ye  advocates  of  infant  church  member- 
ship ;  for  not  content  with  refusing  infant  females  a  place  in  the 
church  of  old,  vou  have  now  outdone  the  Baptists  entirely,  who 
denv  the  right  to  infants,  as  such  ;  whereas  your  door  into  the 
church  excludes  females  of  whatever  age,  or  however  pious. 
But  this  does  the  business  for  Mr.  E.'s  division  of  the  subjects 
of  baptism  into  adults  and  infants,  when  he  says,  that  adults 
ought  not  to  be  baptized  without  repentance  and  faith,  though 
infants  may  without  either.  It  is  well  known,  that  adults  among 
the  Jews  had  circumcision  administered  to  them  without  any 
evidence  of  grace,  yea,  when  extremely  wicked  in  their  life  ; 
neither  is  there  any  evidence  that  any  spiritual  qualifications 
were  required  in  order  thereunto.  But  if  the  Jewish  and  gospel 
churches  are  the  same,  then,  according  to  that  rule,  no  gracious 
qualifications  are  to  be  required  of  any  person  in  order  to  mem- 
bership in  the  gospel  church  ;  and  Mr.  E.'s  talk  about  faith  and 
repentance  being  necessary  to  adult  baptism,  must  not  be  sincere. 
It  does  follow,  therefore,  that  either  the  Jewish  and  gospel 
churches  are  not  one  and  the  same,  and  that  circumcision  is  no 
rule  for  the  administration  of  baptism  ;  or  else  that  the  church 
is  not  the  church,  and  the  rule  is  not  the  rule. 

But  still,  Mr.  E.  insists  upon  it^  that  "  circumcision  must 
surely  be  a  religious  rite,  and  as  much  so  as  either  baptism  or  the 
Lord  s  supper ;"  and  in  attempting  to  prove  it,  says,  "  circumci- 
sion is  called  a  sign,  a  seal."  As  a  sign,  it  "  denotes  the  grace 
of  God  in  the  heart ;  as  a  seal,  it  applies  to  the  righteousness  of 
faith,  the  righteousness  of  Christ."  Do  not  smile,  reader  !  this 
is  a  wonder- working  ordinance  indeed:  no  wonder  the  gentleman 
admires  circumcision  so  much,  when  it  puts  love  to  God  in  the 
heart,  makes  the  subject  of  it  apply  to  the  righteousness  of  faith ; 
nor  can  you  think  it  strange  that  his  reverence  for  the  Jeivisk 
commonzvealth  was  such,  when  they  were  all  made  so  very  holy 
by  circumcision :  but  then,  what  became  of  the  poor  little  female 
babies  ?  It  seems  they  had  no  holiness,  nor  the  least  grain  of 
faith,  that  they  should  receive  the  sign.  But  it  appears,  that 
our  Lord  Jesus  thought  differently  from  this  gentleman  about 
his  circumcised  believers  ;  for  he  says,  Matth.  xxiii.  33.  "  Ye 
serpents,  ye  generation  of  vipers,  how  can  ye  escape  the 
damnation  of  hell."  The  truth  is,  that  it  is  only  said  to  have 
been  a  sign  and  seal  to  Abraham  himself,  and  not  to  his 
posterity  in  common  with  him,  Rom.  iv.  11.  The  gentleman 
is  equally  unfortunate  in  his  remark  on  2  Cor.  xi.  12.  ;  for  the 
:'<-<^mn?ior!  there,  intends  not  the  circumcision  of  Tews  in 

P 


110 

common,  but  of  Christ  in  particular.  The  other  two  passages 
quoted,  have  no  relation  whatever  to  proving  circumcision  to  be 
purely  a  religious  rite,  and  he  might  as  well  produce  Gen.  i.  1. 
u  In  the  beginning  God  created  the  heaven  and  the  earth,"  to 
prove  his  point.  His  inference  from  Rom.  iii.  2.  and  xv.  8.  is, 
that  as  to  the  Jews  the  cracles  of  God  were  committed,  and  be- 
cause Christ,  as  a  minister,wi\s  uof"  the  circumcision,  or  in  other 
words,  a  Jew,  that  these  things  evidenced  the  spirituality  of  the 
ordinance.  The  oracles  of  God  are  committed  in  providence  to 
us  as  Americans :  but  would  any  one  be  so  stupid  as  to  infer 
from  hence,  that  his  title  to  citizenship  must  needs  be  a  religious 
rite  ?  yet  circumcision  was  no  more  to  the  Jew,  than  a  designa- 
tion ol  his  being  a  subject  to  God  as  a  temporal  prince.  Equally 
strange  it  is  to  hear  Mr.  E.  make  use  of  the  last  text,  wherein  the 
apostle  only  aimed  at  eradicating  the  prejudices  of  the  christians 
which  were  suffered  to  exist  against  their  Jewish  brethren,  on 
account  of  their  having  crucified  their  Lord  Christ ;  and  with 
this  view  reminds  them,  that  Christ  was  a  minister  of  circum- 
cision, and  therefore  exhorts,  u  receive  ye  one  another." 

The  author  of  the  sermon  on  baptism,  agrees  with  Mr.  E. 
concerning  circumcision  being  done  away  and  baptism  coming 
in  its  place,  and  he  censures  the  Baptists  very  much  for  denying 
it.  We  shall  now  see  what  he  can  say  in  its  behalf.  Page  47, 
"  As  infants  were  the  subjects  of  circumcision,  and  were  recog- 
nized and  marked  as  the  people  of  God  by  this  rite  ;  the 
conclusion  is  very  natural  and  reasonable}  that  if  baptism  comes 
in  the  place  of  circumcision,  as  the  token  of  admission  into  the 
church,  infants  are  the  proper  subjects  of  this  ordinance." 

In  this  extraordinary  paragraph  the  question  is  begged,  "  If 
baptism  comes  in  its  place  :"  if! — if! !  then  it  seems  the  author 
really  doubted  concerning  the  business  himself.  Why  did  he  not 
ask  us  to  grant  at  once  all  he  contends  for  ?  and  then,  to  be  sure, 
lie  might  proceed  with  his  inferences.  But  we  object^  and  put 
him  upon  the  proof  of  what  he  takes  for  granted.  And  then  the 
first  "  if"  being  granted,  that  is,  that  circumcision  was  a  door 
into  the  church  among  the  Jews ;  of  course,  as  a  compliment  to 
him,  we  shall  concede  the  other  likewise. 

We  have  already  proved,  that  circumcision  was  not  the  door 
;nto  the  Jewish  church,  or  else  the  females  were  never  in  that 
church*  But  then  he  tells  uf ,  the  females  were  reckoned  "  of 'the 
circumcised,"  page  49,  a  accounted  of  the  circumcision  !"  But 
Avhether  he  intended  those  that  were  -wives  of them-— children  cf 
ihcm-^-or  scrvcmts  of  them,  is  left  in  the  dark  :  but  still  they  are 
not  after  all  really  the  circumcision,  but  only  accounted  so.  Is 
It  in  tliis  way  the  gentleman  wishes  female  infants  to  be  inducted 
into  the  church  ?  And  would  it  do  were  he  to  insist,  that  the 


Ill 

female  infants  are  baptized,  or  accounted  so,  because  they  are 
of  baptized  parents  ?     Yet,  strange  as  such  an  assertion  would 
appear,  it  is  exactly  what  he  vindicates.     After  all,  it  appears 
that  Jewish  infants  were  in  that  church  before  they  were  circum- 
cised ;  for  if  they  were  not,  how  could  they  be  cut  off  from  it  ? 
Yet  Moses  declares,  the  Israelite  not  circumcised  should  be  cut 
off  irom  his  people,  Gen.  xvii.  14.    The  gentleman  has  no  need 
to  wait  until  infants  of  believers  are  baptized  in  order  to  become 
members  ;  for  if  he  will  have  the  practice  of  the  Jews  to  be  in 
point,  they  are  born  members  of  the  church.  Neither  is  baptism 
the  door  of  the  gospel  church,  though  it  must  be  administered 
prior  to  admission :  but  this  honour  is  reserved  to  the  Redeemer 
himself;  John  x.  9.  "  I  am  the  door;  by  me  if  any  man  enter  in, 
he  shall  be  saved ;"  and  if  any  enter  into  the  church  another 
way,  even  though  it  were  by  infant  baptism,  he  enters  wrong. 
Christ  says  in  verse  1.  "  He  that  entereth  not  by  the  door  into 
the  sheepfold,  but  climbeth  up  some  other  xvay,  the  same  is  a 
thief  and  a  robber"     By  natural  generation,  the  posterity  of 
Abraham  became  members  of  the  Jewish  church:  but  it  is  only 
by  the  renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  the  Spirit  of  Christ,  who  is 
the  door,  that  persons  are  qualified  for,  and  authorized  to,  enter 
into  the  gospel  church. 

Neither  were  the  Jews  marked  as  the  people  of  God  in  a 
spiritual  sense,  but  only  in  a  natural  one.  But  this  cannot  be 
said  of  the  subjects  of  baptism  ;  for  by  baptism  they  enjoy  no 
natural  nor  temporal  blessings  distinct  from  others.  But  in 
baptism,  the  proper  subjects  of  it  are  to  be  distinguished  by 
something  more,  even  a  renovation  of  nature,  This  argument 
of  itself  is  calculated  to  overthrow  infant  church  membership  * 
because,  if  baptism  did  really  come  in  the  place  of  circumcision, 
and  if  circumcision  was  a  mark  or  sign  that  the  Jew  was  God's 
subject  in  a  natural  point  of  view,  and  if  baptism  is  %o  be  a 
jnark  of  the  subjects  of  it  belonging  to  God  in  a  gospel  sense.  ■, 
then  it  follows,  that  if  God's  mark  is  to  be  put  only  on  property 
that  really  belongs  to  him,  we  are  not  by  baptism  to  mark  the 
devil's  goats  for  Christ's  sheep,  unless  we  mean  to  commit  a 
religious  theft.  Here,  indeed,  is  the  infatuation  of  all  Pcedc- 
baptist  writers  :  they  will  have  circumcision  to  be  a  sign  and  a 
seal ;  and  likewise  the  ordinances  of  the  gospel  to  be  the  same. 
Now,  be  it  so:  what  is  it  a  sign  and  a  seal  of?  They  answer, 
they  are  both  of  them  sig^s  of  inward  grace,  death  to  sin,  of 
being  righteous  persons.  Very  well,  what  will  this  bring  you  to, 
gentlemen,  on  the  principles  you  espouse  ?  Will  you  put  the 
signature  of  God  to  a  lie  ?  God  tells  you  to  sign  and  seal  his 
property,  he  has  entrusted  the  seals  with  you  to  that  end,  and 
will  you  challenge  that  as  God's  spiritual  property  he  has  nevqj 


112 

owned  ?     Observe,  sirs,  baptism  is  a  sign  "  of  inward  grace 
— of  justification  by  the  righteousness  of  Christ.'1     Is  it  a  sign 
of  these  things  to  some  other  person  ?    If  so,  why  put  the  sign  at 
a  distance  from  the  thing  signified  ?  Is  it  a  sign  of  the  person 
possessing  it  who  is  marked,  or  signed  by  baptism  ?   If  so,  why 
do  you  not  ascertain  this  to  be  the  fact  first,  and  how  dare  you 
to  lie  in  the  name  of  the  Lord,  in  testifying  by  affixing  his 
signature,  that  these  persons  are  renewed,  when  they  are  not  ? 
I  know  the  outcry  will  be  made,  that  we  declare  children  to  be 
in  a  depraved  and  unrewed  state,  and  that  this  is  uncharitable, 
for  they  are  not  sinners  by  practice.    But  in  what  respect  do  we 
differ  in  this  from  yourselves  ?    Is  it  not  well  known  that  few 
deny  this  ?   But  you  make  either  the  natural  sanctity  of  infants, 
or  a  supposed  sanctity  of  the  offspring  of  believers,  the  ground 
on  which  to  baptize  them  ;  and  you  think  you  ought,  in  order 
to  be  charitable,  presume  such  to  be  renewed,  though  it  cannot 
be  proved.     But  that  which  sets  infant  baptism  in  its  true  light 
is,  that  after  the  sign  and  seal  of  God  (as  they  call  baptism)  is 
put  upon  them  in  their  infancy,  they  grow  up  to  man's  estate, 
and  at  least  nineteen  twentieths  *  of  them  disdain  all  connection 
with  God,  and  carry  the  devil's  mark  in  their  forehead.     How 
many  baptized  swearers — swindlers— unclean    persons — and 
even  infidels,  the  associates  of  a  Paine,  do  we  see !  Are  there  not 
thousands  I  and  did  they  not  receive  this  seal  in  their  infancy  ? 
And  yet,  after  all  this  testimony  of  our  senses  to  the  contrary, 
we  are  still  told,  that  baptism  is  the  sign  and  seal  of  spiritual 
grace.     It  is  now  come  to  pass,  that  instead  of  baptism  being 
an  ordinance  to  distinguish  the  pious  from  others,  it  is  rather 
calculated  to  distinguish  men  of  the  world  from  the  pious  ;  for 
(if  sprinkling  is  baptism)  the  number  of  unrenewed  persons  that 
are  baptized,  are  to  the  pious,  at  least  in  the  ratio  of  one  hundred 
to  one,  and  yet  we  are  to  hear  that  it  is  a  seal  and  sign  of  interest 
in  the  covenant  of  grace  !     If  circumcision  was  a  sign  and  seal 
to  the  Jews,  it  was  only  a  sign  and  seal  of  natural  subjection  to 
God,  and  therefore  was  properly  applied  :  but  if  baptism  must 
needs  be  a  sign  and  seal,  then  let  it  be  applied  to  those  who  are 
as  really  Christ's  subjects,  as  the  Jews  were  under  a  Theocracy, 
or  divine  national  government ;  for  it  is  as  absurd  to  administer 
baptism  to  such  as  are  not  Christ's  real  subjects,  as  it  would 
have  been  in  Moses  to  go  and  insist  on  other  nations  receiving 
circumcision. 

The  author  owns,  however,  that  baptism  does  not  introduce, 
as  did  circumcision,  the  party  into  "  a  national  church,  and 
worldly  sanctuary."     Why,  sir,  hesitate  ?  Did  you  not  testify, 

*  I  speak  ot  infant  sprinkling  as  generally  practised. 


I 


113 

that  Christ  has  not  abridged  the  privileges  of  the  church  under 

the  gospel  ?     But  here,  it  seems,  you  are  for  curtailing.     Is  not 

this  a  contradiction  ?  and  will  it  be  any  more  sin  for  a  Baptist  to 

lessen  the  bounds  of  the  church,  than  yourself?    But,  reader, 

the  gentleman  sees  a  rock,  he  wishes  to  avoid  it  if  possible,  and 

that  rock  is  a  national  church.    It  is  beyond  the  power  of  all  his 

good  sense  to  bring  him  out  of  this  dilemma ;  for,  if  church 

membership  under  the  gospel  is  the  same  as  the  Jewish,  there 

is  an  end  of  particular  churches,  and  of  course,  a  national  church 

must  exist :  but  whether  it  shall  be  the  church  of  Rome,  or  of 

England,  is  not  yet  established.     Had  not  the  gentleman  been 

a  dissenter,  the  Jewish  church  would  have  suited  as  a  model 

entirely,  and  then  with  what  additional  force  could  he  have 

reasoned  from  it !  Still  I  must  dissent  from  him  when  he  says, 

infant  baptism  will  not  "  introduce  into  a  national  church." 

This  is  precisely  its  tendency  ;  for  as  all  baptized  infants  are  by 

them  said  to  be  church  members,  and  as  it  is  well  known,  that 

infant  sprinkling  has  drawn  within  its  vortex  whole  nations  in 

Europe,  with  but  few  exceptions,  and  in  this  country  the  large 

majority  of  the  inhabitants  are  precisely  in  the  same  situation  ; 

surely  it  comes  with  an  ill  grace  from  the  gentleman,  that  it  does 

not  introduce  into  a  national  church.     Equally  incorrect  is  the 

remark,  that  it  does  not  introduce  into  a  uzvordly  sanctuariu" 

If  I  am  not  much  mistaken,  it  will  do  even  worse  ;  it  will  turn  a 

real  church  of  God  into  a  worldly  sanctuary.     Let  a  church  be 

composed  entirely  of  believers,  and  let  them  admit  all  their 

offspring  to  baptism  and  membership  ;  and  I  would  ask  the 

gentleman,  how  long  a  time  would  it  take  to  make  a  wordly 

sanctuary  of  such  a  church  ?     As  it  behoves  me  to  be  faithful, 

I  do  not  hesitate  to  say,  that,  through  this  same  thing,  infant 

baptism,  the  church  has  greatly  disappeared  and  fled  into  the 

wilderness  ;  and  a  something,  called  indeed  by  the  name  of 

Christ's  church,  but  not  so  in  reality,  has  taken  its  place.    Let 

us  then,  hear  no  more  about  an  institution  fraught  with  so  much 

mischief  to  the  cause  of  vital  godliness. 

As  to  what  the  author  says  of  circumcision  "being  an  outward 
token  of  interest  in  Abraham's  covenant,  as  baptism  is  of  interest 
in  the  covenant  of  grace  ;"  this  has  been  noticed  briny  remarks 
about  signs,  and  seals.  As  circumcision  could  not  be  a  token 
to  a  Jew  of  his  having  grace,  when  he  had  not ;  so  neither  is 
baptism  a  token  that  the  person  belongs  to  Christ,  who  is  an 
unrenewed  man.  But  as  circumcision  was  indeed  to  the  Jew. 
a  token  of  his  natural  union  with,  or  incorporation  into  the 
Jewish  nation,  and  thereby  was  subject  to  its  regulations,  and 
for  that  reason  was  entitled  to  the  care  of  God  as  his  temporal 
prince  while  he  served  him,  or  liable  to  his  displeasure  when  he 


114 

transgressed  ;  all  which  was  true  of  them :  so  also  is  baptism  & 
token,  or  sign  to  a  real  believer,  and  only  to  such,  of  interest 
in  the  covenant  of  grace  ;  and  to  talk  otherwise  is  but  nonsense. 

Grant  it  is  true,  as  the  author  says,  that  the  "  apostle  calls 
christians  the  circumcision  ;9f  yet,  he  calls  them  so,  not  for  having 
been  baptized,  but  as  renewed  persons.  And  this  is  against 
infant  baptism,  inasmuch  as  circumcision  is  allowed  to  prefigure 
regeneration.  Therefore,  the  name  would  not  belong  unto 
any  but  such  as  were  renewed  in  the  temper  of  their  mind,  of 
which  infants  could  give  no  evidence  ;  and  as  spoken  to  them, 
would  in  the  greater  number  of  instances,  prove  to  be  untrue, 
which  is  abundantly  testified  by  their  after  lives  :  but  when 
applied  to  real  believers,  it  then  has  its  utmost  force.  Spiritual 
circumcision  is,  in  this  sense,  an  induction  into  the  church  in 
reality ;  and  were  our  Poedobaptist  brethren  not  to  sprinkle,  nor 
admit  into  the  church  any  other  persons  than  such  as  he  calls  the 
circumcision,  we  should  have  no  dispute  with  them  farther,  as 
to  subjects  of  baptism. 

We  shall  now  return  to  Mr.  E.,  who,  in  page  36,  says,  he 
has  evinced,  "  1.  The  church  membership  of  infants  ;  and, 
2.  Their  admission  to  it  by  a  religious  rite."  In  both  these 
however,  he  has  failed,  notwithstanding  his  positiveness.  He 
has  indeed  proved,  that  the  posterity  of  Abraham  were  yews — 
that  the  males  of  them  were  circumcised — that  every  one  of 
them  was  under  a  Theocracy  or  divine  government,  and  infants 
among  the  rest  were  God's  subjects,  and  certain  things  were  to 
be  done  for  them  which  required  no  grace  to  perform,  either  in 
the  administrator  or  subject.  But  still  he  has  not  proved  that 
the  Jewish  nation  were  a  church  of  God,  in  that  sense  in  which 
the  gospel  church  is  so  called.  Taking  it  for  granted  that  his 
assertions  would  be  admitted  as  facts,  he  draws  these  following 
inferences  :  "1.  That  infancv  is  not  incompatible  with  church 
membership  ;  and,  2.  That  the  ignorance  and  want  of  faith, 
Inseparable  from  a  state  of  infancy,  are  no  impediments  to  the 
administration  of  a  religious  ordinance." 

All  that  he  has  proved  is,  that  infancy  was  not  incompatible 
with  a  membership  in  the  Jewish  church  ;  and  the  reasons 
>are  plain,  because,  1.  There  were  no  spiritual  qualifications 
required  of  the  person  to  be  circumcised,  no  matter  what  his 
time  of  life  ;  2.  Because  the  duties  enjoined  to  be  performed 
were  such  as  a  natural  man  without  any  grace  could  perform, 
and  that  by  the  exertion  of  his  natural  powers  ;  and  3.  If  infants 
were  not  in  a  capacity  to  perform  what  was  required  of  th$m, 
.still  this  defect  was  remedied  for  the  time  being,  by  the  appoint- 
ment of  persons  to  do  these  things  for  them,  until  they  were  in 
a  condition  to  do  it  for  themselves  ;  and  the  things  to  be  dotte- 


I 


115 

for  them  were  not  of  a  spiritual  nature,  but  lay  altogether  in 
outward  ceremonies,  which  persons  could  well  do  in  their  place* 
]3ut  will  it  do  to  reason  from  such  a  carnal  institution,  to  one 
purely  spiritual  ?  To  shew  the  absurdity  of  such  conclusions, 
nothing  more  becomes  necessary,  than  to  state  the  premises 
fairly,  and  then  to  see  whether  the  conclusions  are  not  monstrous 
indeed. 

Premises  1.  Young  male  infants  were  circumcised  by  the 
command  of  God  under  the  old  law,  but  no  gracious  qualifica- 
tions were  necessary  in  order  thereunto,  neither  in  an  infant  cr 
an  adult. — Conclusion.  And  for  that  reason,  baptism,  an  ordi- 
nance which  requires  grace  in  the  subject,  is  to  be  performed, 
though  no  grace  exists  in  the  person  ! 

Premises  2.  Gcd  required  no  duties  of  'a  circumcised  person 
as  a  qualification  for  the  ordinance,  nor  yet  any  to  follow  after 
it  on  the  account  of  receiving  it,  but  what  he  could  perform 

independent  of  divine  aid,  or  without  a  renewed  heart. • 

Conclusion.  Because  such  were  circumcised,  it  follows,  that 
an  infant  may  be  baptized,  although  spiritual  qualifications  arc- 
required  of  him,  and  spiritual  duties  are  to  be  performed,  which 
he  has  not  done,  and  cannot  do  I 

Preinises  3.  Vv 'hen  God  commanded  a  Jewish  infant  to  be 
circumcised,  he  made  provision  for  remedying  the  defect  of  his 
natural  capacity,  by  appointing  others  to  do  for  him  what  was 
to  be  done  in  his  infancy,  and  which  tliev  could  perform,  and 
which  at  a  suitable  age  the  child  with  certainty  could  do  for 
himself. — Conclusion.  My  infant  therefore  may  be  baptized, 
although  mere  has  been  no  such  thing  as  sponsorship  appointed 
— and  though  if  it  had,  it  would  not  have  answered — and  though 
qualifications  are  required  whicH  my  infant  have  not — and 
though  no  one  can  do  the  things  required  for  him — nor  yet  he 
himself,  neither  now,  nor  at  any  future  time  ! 

If  such  premises  and  conclusions  will  suit  Mr.  E.'s  readers, 
they  are  not  very  nice  indeed  in  their  choice  of  instructors  :  but 
certain  I  am,  they  will  never  satisfy  an  enquiring  mind. 

But,  says  he,  in  opposing  the  church  membership  of  infants  the 
Baptists  have  against  them,  u  the  Wisdom  of  God  who  ordained 
it,  and  the  practice  of  tivo  thousand  years."  We  as  much 
admire  the  wisdom  of  God  in  the  former  dispensation  as  Mr.  E. 
and  we  have  already  shewn  wherein  his  wisdom  consisted  in 
setting  apart  the  Jews  in  a  national  capacity ;  and  we  do  as  much 
admire  his  wisdom  in  instituting  a  gospel  church,  which  is  not 
national  or  carnal,  but  purely  spiritual,  and  is  freed  from  all 
the  exceptions  to  which  a  national  church  is  exposed.  If  the 
custom  of  receiving  infants  had  existed  ten  thousand  years, 
instead  of  two}  yet  this  will  not  make  it  appear  that  a  change 


116 

was  not  necessary.  It  must  be  remembered,  that  the  gospel 
church  was  to  be  a  more  perfect  one  ;  and,  for  that  very  reason, 
infant  membership  could  not  exist,  or  in  vain  would  that 
perfection  have  been  sought. — If  that  gentleman  wishes  to  see 
what  infant  church  membership  has  done,  let  him  look  at  the 
mournful  picture  the  nations  in  Europe  exhibit,  where  the  name 
only  of  religion  exists,  with  but  few  exceptions. 

Mr.  E.'s  second  inference  is,  "  that  ignorance  and  a  want  of 
faith,  inseparable  from  a  state  of  infancy,  are  no  impediments  to 
the  administration  of  a  religious  ordinance."  He  might  with 
more  propriety  have  said,  that  had  no  religion  in  it.  That 
ignorance  and  incapacity  in  a  Jewish  infant  were  no  bar  to 
the  administration  of  circumcision  is  admitted,  and  that  for 
these  plain  reasons  :  No  spiritual  qualifications  were  required 
of  them — nor  was  the  church  a  spiritual  body,  with  which  they 
were  connected — nor  were  any  spiritual  duties  required  in  order 
to  membership,  either  of  young  or  old — nor  at  any  after  period 
were  duties  demanded,  but  what  they  could  perform  without  a 
renewed  heart.  But  will  the  gentleman  say,  that  no  spiritual 
qualifications  are  necessary  to  fulfil  the  duties  of  a  member  of 
the  church  of  Christ,  and  that  ignorance  and  want  of  faith  are 
no  obstruction  to  membership  in  this  case  l 


ON  MR.  E.'s  2d  ARGUMENT,    CHAPTER  II, 

Mr.  E.  prefaces  this  argument  thus  :  "  The  church  member- 
ship of  infants  was  never  set  aside  by  God  or  man ;  but  continues 
in  force,  under  the  sanction  of  God,  to  the  present  day." — His 
drift  is,  to  prove  that  the  Jewish  church  was  not  dissolved  by 
the  gospel  dispensation,  and  that  in  fact  the  gentiles  were 
received  into  the  Jewish  church.  If  his  reasonings  amount  to 
any  thing,  it  must  be  this  ;  that  the  gentiles  became  incorporated 
with  the  whole  Jewish  nation,  and  were  reckoned  proselytes, 
(for  the  whole  nation  were  the  church) ;  for  he  says  they  were 
**■  brought  into  the  Jewish  church."  He  cannot  mean,  the  little 
handful  gathered  by  Christ ;  forf  in  that  case,  his  scheme  would 
be  ruined,  inasmuch  as  his  dependance  is  on  the  continuance  of 
that  church,  to  prove  infant  church  membership  ;  for,  if  those 
that  Christ  gathered  by  his  ministry  were  the  church,  in  distinc- 
tion from  the  rest  of  the  Jews,  it  will  at  last  prove  a  dreadful 
task  for  him  to  make  out  that  infants  were  among  them.  How 
truly  ridiculous  dots  this  appear,  and  how  inconsistent  with 
truth  !  It  would  seem  by  him,  that  all  the  priests,  people, 
oanhedrin,  and  even  those  that  crucified  Christ,  were  members 
of  his  gospel  church. 


f 


lit 

But  here  is  a  mystery  :  Mr.  E.  says  circumcision  was  a  door 
into  the  church,  and  that  baptism  is  a  door  into  the  church.  What 
does  he  mean  ?  Is  it,  that  there  are  two  churches  ?  or  is  it,  that 
there  are  txvo  doors  into  the  church  ?  Perhaps  he  meant  to  shew 
how  convenient  the  church  of  God  was  for  admission  ;  on  the 
one  side,  a  door  for  the  Jews  by  circumcision,  and  then  a  door 
on  the  other  for  the  gentiles  by  baptism.  But,  according  to  him, 
baptism  was  a  door  into  the  church,  and  yet  the  circumcised 
Jews  had  to  come  in  as  well  as  the  gentiles.  Why,  this  would 
look  a  little  like  a  contradiction,  and  would  seem  to  intimate,  that 
there  was  a  body  distinct  from  the  Jewish  nation,  in  which  Jews 
must  enter  as  well  as  gentiles.  But  if  the  Jews  were  in  already \ 
and  had  been  brought  in  by  circumcision,  how  in  the  name  of 
sense  could  they  be  brought  in  a  second  timet  To  be  brought  in, 
supposes  the  party  to  have  been  out.  You,  sir,  say  that  the 
Jews  were  "  in  before."  How  then,  were  they  to  come  in? 
What,  sir,  shall  we  do  with  this?  It  will  be  a  lame  piece  of  work 
after  all  your  patching. 

In  page  43,  he  says,  "  It  appears  from  the  text,  that  the 
church  state  is  the  same  to  the  gentiles,  that  it  had  been  to  the 
Jews,"  and  adds,  u  that  the  changes  made  were  only  like  the 
change  of  a  garment,  when  the  man  himself  remains  the  same." 
First  he  tells  us  the  church  is  the  same — then  he  says,  the 
cloathing  has  been  changed-— then  admits  the  priesthood  was 
lopped  off — and  then  he  adds  to  them  all,  the  female  children  of 
believing  parents  ;  and  yet,  after  all  this,  very  gravely  tells  us, 
the  church  is  the  same,  the  very  same  it  ever  was  :  wonderful 
consistency  this  ! !  But  he  has  not  condescended  to  tell  us  how 
much  of  her  cloathing-  has  been  taken  away,  nor  yet  where  he 
found  new  express  laxv\  as  he  calls  it,  to  add  females  to  the  old 
Jewish  church  ;  but  leaves  us  to  make  it  out  as  well  as  we  can. 
We  read,  that  under  the  sermon  of  Peter,  many  converts  were 
made,  and  it  is  afterwards  said,  that  about  "  three  thousand 
were  added  to  the  church  the  same  dav,"  Acts  ii.  41-  and  that 
44  God  added  to  the  church  daily  such  as  he  would  have  to  be 
saved."  Is  it  possible  to  conceive,  that  these  Jews  were  added 
to  the  church  of  which  they  were  members  before  ;  to  the  old 
Jewish  church  ?  And  could  it  with  propriety  be  said,  that  such 
were  added  to  the  church  daily  as  he  would  have  to  be  saved, 
when  they  were  already  a  part  of  the  old  Jewish  church  ?  Or 
.vere  they  all  gentiles  that  the  apostle  Peter  addressed,  and  on 
whom  he  charged  the  murder  of  Christ,  of  whom  it  was  said 
they  were  baptized  mid  added  to  the  church?  To  the  confusion  of 
Mr.  E.  these  persons  that  were  thus  added  were  Jews,  Acts  ii. 
36.  "  Therefore  let  all  the  house  of  Israel  know  assuredly,  thar 
God  hath  made  that  same  Jesus,  whom  ye  have  crucified,  both 

Q 


118 

Lord  and  Christ ;"  and  in  verse  41,  three  thousand  of  these  are 
said  to  be  added  to  the  church.  Blush,  Mr.  Edwards,  if  vou 
are  capable  of  a  consciousness  of  wrong.  In  Acts  xi.  22.  "  Ti- 
dings of  these  things  came  unto  the  ears  of  the  church  which 
was  in  Jerusalem:  and  they  sent  forth  Barnabas,  that  he  should 
go  as  far  as  Antioch."  But,  according  to  this  gentleman, 
Barnabas  must  have  been  sent  to  preach,  not  by  the  disciples, 
but  by  the  enemies  of  Christ,  even  by  the  Jewish  nation  ;  for  it 
was  the  church  that  sent  him,  and  all  the  inhabitants  of  Jerusalem 
at  least,  must  have  aided  in  sending  out  this  missionary  to 
propagate  the  gospel  of  Christ,  especially  as  their  "  branches" 
were  not  then  broken  off.  But  why  do  I  take  up  time  thus 
Without  cause  ?  No  man  ever  had  the  impudence  before  Mr.  E. 
to  declare,  that  Christ  and  the  apostles,  together  with  the  Jews 
of  every  rank  and  description,  were  the  gospel  church  spoken  of 
In  Jerusalem  ;  and  so  contrary  is  this  to  every  thing  like  truth, 
confident  I  am  that  no  man  will  receive  it. 

For  the  proof  that  the  same  church  remains  as  constituted  by 
God,  he  produces  Matth.  xxi.  43.  u  Therefore  I  say  unto  you, 
the  kingdom  of  God  shall  be  taken  from  you,  and  be  given  to  a 
nation  bringing  forth  the  fruits  thereof."  The  plain  meaning, 
lie  says,  of  this  "  passage  is,  that  as  in  time  past,  the  church  of 
God,  which  is  his  kingdom,  was  limited  to  Judea ;  so,  in  future, 
he  would  have  a  church  in  the  gentile  world."  The  inconsistency 
of  all  this  will  thus  appear  :  he  says,  the  church  is  his  kingdom, 
and  that  church  was  made  up  of  all  the  posterity  of  Abraham  ; 
then  by  the  giving  of  the  kingdom  must  be  intended,  that  the 
Jewish  nation  should  be  given  to  the  gentiles.  Indeed  the  Lord 
was  wonderfully  good  to  give  his  church  away,  and  that  to  the 
gentiles.  "  But  this,"  it  seems,  u  was  to  take  place  by  numerous 
accessions  made  from  the  gentiles,  until  their  numbers  would 
fully  absorb  the  Jewish  nation."  Now  all  this  goes  to  prove, 
what  no  man  will  believe,  that  the  gentile  converts  first  became 
Jews  and  were  incorporated  with  the  nation  ;  then  in  return, 
the  Jews  became  gentiles,  and  were  lost  in  the  gentile  nations. 
But  what  ruins  all  is,  that  the  Jewrish  nation  is  yet  distinct  from 
all  others.  Well,  but  it  was  the  state  and  not  the  people.  Very 
well ;  and  what  state  was  it  that  was  removed,  was  it  the  gospel 
and  ordinances  ?  If  so,  then  the  kingdom  of  God  as  you  call  the 
Jewish  nation,  never  did  accept  or  own  them,  and  it  is  folly  to 
talk  of  taking  a  state  from  them  they  never  had  ;  on  your 
principles  this  will  not  do.  But  do  you  mean  by  the  state  the 
old  Jewish  worship  ?  If  so,  that  the  gentiles  did  not  receive, 
though  some  of  them  were  much  perplexed  therewith.  But 
after  all,  by  the  kingdom  of  God  it  does  not  appear  distinctly 
F/hat  he  means  ;  for  somuimes  he  affirms  the  Jews  themselves 


119 

were  that  kingdom  :  but  finding  this  did  not  sound  very  well? 
that  the  Jews  should  be  given  to  the  gentiles,  which  indeed 
must  be  the  case,  if  what  he  calls  God's  kingdom  was  given  to 
them  ;  he  then  exchanges  the  word  kingdom,  for  state,  or 
condition.  And  what  does  he  gain  by  the  change  ?  Certainly 
nothing  ;  for  by  the  church  state,  or  condition,  must  be  meant 
either  the  condition  or  state  of  the  body  at  large,  or  else  those 
converted  to  the  christian  religion.  If  it  was  that  of  the  body 
at  large,  that  was  the  old  ceremonial  worship,  but  surely  the 
gentiles  never  had  received  that :  but  if  the  latter  was  intended, 
then  it  must  be  false  what  Mr.  E.  affirms,  (and  which  is  indeed 
so)  that  the  ivhole  Jewish  nation  were  the  kingdom  of  God : 
but  that  kingdom  must  have  consisted  only  of  those  converted 
under  the  ministry  of  Christ.  This  being  the  case,  the  truth  of 
which  it  would  be  absurd  to  the  last  degree  to  question,  they 
being  a  distinct  body  from  that  nation  in  religious  things,  how 
will  Mr.  E.  make  it  appear,  that  this  separate  body  admitted 
infants  into  their  number  ?  He  has  in  this  case  no  data  to  reason 
from;  for  they  being  a  distinct  body  from  the  nation  at  large,. 
and  no  ways  connected  with,  (except  by  national  ties)  nor  de- 
pendent on  them,  where  is  the  analogy  between  the  first  and 
last,  from  which  the  membership  of  infants  could  be  inferred  I 

But  that  he  distinguishes  between  worship  and  the  kingdom 
itself,  will  appear  page  40,  that  rituals  "  were  not  of  the  essence 
of  a  church  state  ;"  that  "  rituals  are  to  a  church  what  diet  and 
raiment  are  to  a  man,"  and  "  these  removed,  the  essence  of  the 
man  will  remain  the  same."  From  all  which  it  will  appear,  that 
the  kingdom  and  state  he  alludes  to  are  two  things  ;  and  the 
kingdom  or  Jewish  nation,  as  distinct  from  the  rituals,  must, 
according  to  him,  been  given  to  the  gentiles :  greater  foolishness 
than  which  cannot  well  be  conceived  of.  But  if  the  rituals,  or 
worship,  as  distinct  from  this  kingdom,  or  church,,  are  given  ; 
then  also  an  equal  absurdity  follows,  which  is,  that  a  mode  of 
worship  was  transferred  from  one  to  the  other ;  but  in  the  transfer 
the  kingdom  itself  was  left  behind.  Poor  Mr.  E.  cannot  bring 
his  Jewish  infants  into  the  gentile  church. 

But  all  this  nonsense  to  which  we  allude,  takes  its  rise  from 
a  false  interpretation  of  the  text,  in  which  the  kingdom  there 
mentioned,  does  not  mean  the  Jews  as  a  nation,  nor  yet  the  first 
gospel  church  in  particular  ;  but  by  u  the  kingdom  of  God"  in 
the  passage,  is  meant  the  gospel  which  was  first  sent  to  the  Jews.. 
This,  that  nation  had  in  the  outward  ministry  of  it,  and  this  only 
could  be  taken  from  them,  for  it  was  all  they  had.  And  that 
the  apostle  Paul  understood  it  so,  is  evident,  when  he  thus 
addressed  the  Jews,  Acts  xiii.  4-6.  "  It  was  necessary  that  the 
word  of  God  should  first  have  been  spoken  to  you  ;  but  seeing- 


120 

ye  put  it  from  you,  and  judge  yourselves  unworthy  of  everlasting 
life,  lo,  we  turn  to  the  gentiles :  for  so  hath  the  Lord  commanded 
us  ;"  and  Matth  x.  5.  "  Go  not  into  the  way  of  the  gentiles,  and 
into  any  city  of  the  Samaritans  enter  ye  not,  but  go  rather  to 
the  lost  sheep  of  the  house  of  Israel ;  and  as  ye  go,  preach  saying, 
the  kingdom  of  heaven  is  at  hand  ;"  and  Luke  xxiv.  47.  "  And 
that  repentance  and  remission  of  sins  should  be  preached  in  his 
name  among  all  nations,  beginning  at  Jerusalem."  But  if  the 
kingdom  of  heaven  meant  the  church,  it  was  not  good  sense  to 
say  it  was  at  hand,  for  it  was  already  there  ;  and  had  existed, 
as  Mr.  E.  says,  two  thousand  years.  Surely,  then,  this  can  only 
apply  to  the  gospel,  which  was  to  be  dispensed  first  to  them  and 
afterward  removed.  It  is  also  said,  Luke  x.  8.  "  The  kingdom 
of  God  is  come  nigh  unto  you."  But  if  Mr.  E.  is  right,  it  had 
been  with  them  two  thousand  years*  Mark  i.  14.  u  Jesus  came 
into  Galilee,  preaching  the  gospel  of  the  kingdom  of  God"  I 
shall  not  quote  more  scripture  to  shew  the  gospel  was  intended 
in  Matth.  xxi.  43.  ;  but  shall  content  myself  with  making  it 
appear,  that  although  the  church  is  indeed  called  the  kingdom 
of  God  *  yet  the  words '  kingdom-ef  God',  where  it  does  occur,  is 
not  applied  to  the  Jews  as  they  were  in  a  national  capacity,  or  as 
they  were  united  with  the  first  christians  ;  but  that  the  word  is 
applied  only  to  a  gospel  church,  as  distinct  from  them. 

"  It  is  hard  for  a  rich  man  to  enter  into  the  kingdom,,,  Mark 
x.  23.  Luke  xviii.  24.  But  if  the  Jewish  nation  was  meant,  it 
was  not  hard ;  for  the  rich  were  already  in  that.  Publicans  and 
harlots  were  said  to  go  into  the  kingdom  before  the  Pharisees, 
Luke  xxi.  31. :  but  how  can  that  be,  if  the  Pharisees  who  were 
Jews  were  already  in  this  kingdom?  Certainly,  on  Mr.  E.'s 
plan,  this  is  all  foolishness.  In  Luke  vii.  28.  it  is  said  of  John 
the  Baptist,  "  The  least  in  the  kingdom  of  God  is  greater  than 
he ;"  from  which  it  would  appear,  that  the  gospel  church  was 
so  far  from  being  made  up  of  all  the  Jews,  that  the  forerunner 
of  our  Lord  was  not  therein  ;  and  how  clearly  does  this  shew, 
that  the  first  gospel  church  consisted  of  Christ  and  his  disciples, 
the  least  of  whom  was  greater  than  John.  The  young  man  in 
the  gospel  was  said  to  be  M  not  far  from  the  kingdom  of  God  :" 
but  as  the  branches  were  not  yet  broken  off,  according  to  Mr. 
E.  he  must  have  been  really  in  it,  and  that  without  our  Lord 
knowing  it.  But,  to  shew  that  the  Jews  were  never  esteemed 
the  church  of  God  in  a  gospel  sense,  I  subjoin  Matth.  xxiii.  13. 
"  But  woe  unto  you,  scribes,  Pharisees,  hypocrites  ;  for  ye 
shut  up  the  kingdom  of  heaven  against  men,  for  ye  neither  go 
hi  yourselves,  neither  suffer  ye  them  that  are  entering  to  go 
in."  From  all  which  it  appears,  that  Mr.  E.  has  not  given  die 
sense  of  the  passage,  and  that  in  applying  it  to  the  Jewish  church, 


211 

he  went  in  direct  contradiction  to  the  views  of  Christ  and  the 
apostles,  as  to  what  the  gospel  church  really  is.  So  that  after 
all,  the  taking  away  of  the  kingdom  of  God  from  the  Jews,  and 
giving  it  to  the  gentiles,  was  not  a  taking  away  of  the  church 
and  a  giving  it  to  them  ;  but  simply  a  taking  away  of  a  gospel 
ministry  from  the  Jews,  and  preaching  of  it  to  the  gentiles.  But 
if  this  word  kingdom  of  God,  as  found  in  the  text  quoted,  had 
meant  the  church,  and  not  the  gospel ;  yet,  as  I  have  proved 
the  church  was  distinct  from  the  Jewish  church,  Mr.  E.  en- 
tirely fails  of  proving  infant  membership  in  the  gentile  church, 
unless  he  can  make  it  appear  that  infants  were  in  the  church  of 
Jerusalem. 

We  shall  therefore  find  no  difficulty  in  owning  all  he  says  in 
this  paragraph,  page  40,  u  that  the  gentile  church  state  is  the 
same  as  that  among  the  Jews  :"  but  then  the  question  recurs, 
What  was  that  church  ?  Had  it  infants  in  it  ?  Mr.  E.  says  it  had. 
How  does  he  prove  it  ?  Why  by  saying  that  all  the  Jewish  nation 
were  in  it,  and  of  course  infants  were :  but  here  his  proof  fails  ; 
and  I  have  shewn  that  the  Jewish  nation  was  not  considered  in 
the  church ;  yea,  that  it  did  mm  consist  of  Christ  and  his  apostles 
first,  and  afterward  of  those  also  who  were  added  from  time  to 
time.  But  where  is  the  proof  that  infants  were  added  ?  It  is 
most  certain  that  all  the  conclusions  he  has  drawn  from  this  text 
are  false,  as  it  relates  to  the  church  of  God,  and  to  infant 
membership  therein.  From  all  which  it  appears,  that  the  church 
of  Christ  was  a  distinct  body  from  the  Jewish  nation,  and  were 
in  that  capacity  persecuted  by  them,  gave  advice  in  that  capacity 
to  the  deputation  sent  to  them  on  the  question  of  circumcision  ; 
and  the  opinion  of  Mr.  E .  that  infants  were  in  the  New  Testament 
church,  must  rest  on  a  mere  and  mistaken  presumption. 

His  next  argument  is  founded  on  Rom.  xi.  23, 24-  "  And  they 
also,  if  they  abide  not  in  unbelief,  shall  be  grafted  in  :  for  God 
is  able  to  graft  them  in  again.  For  if  thou  wert  cut  out  of  the 
olive  tree  which  is  wild  by  nature,  and  wert  grafted  contrary  to 
nature  in  a  good  olive  tree  :  how  much  more  shall  these,  which 
be  the  natural  branches,  be  grafted  into  their  own  olive  tree  ?" 
The  argument  he  raises  from  this  text  is,  "  That  the  olive  tree 
is  to  denote  a  visible  church  state — the  Jews  are  the  natural 
branches — the  gentiles  were  brought  into  the  same  church  state 
from  which  the  Jews  were  broken  off — that  the  Jews  will  be 
grafted  into  their  own  olive  tree,  or  church  state,  again."  All 
this  goes  on  the  supposition  of  his  former  argument,  that  the 
old  Jewish  church  remained,  and  that  not  only  the  converted 
Jews  retained  their  membership  there,  but  also  that  all  the 
gentiles  were  added  thereunto  when  converted ;  and  all  the 
alteration  that  was  made  consisted  in  a  few  outward  rites. 


122 

•  Nothing  more  will  be  necessary  to  set  this  assertion  in  its  true- 
light,  and  to  bring  it  into  merited  contempt,  together  with  its 
author,  than  these  few  citations  of  scripture  texts  following  : 
"  Fear  came  on  all  the  church,"  Acts  v.  11.  Was  it  the  whole 
Jewish  nation  that  are  here  said  to  be  afraid  ?  Acts  xv.  4.  "  And 
when  they  were  come  to  Jerusalem,  they  were  received  of  the 
church,  and  of  the  apostles  and  elders. "  Were  Paul  and 
Barnabas  received  by  the  Jewish  church,  and  did  that  same 
Jewish  church  afterward  decide  against  circumcision  as  the 
chapter  relates  ?  Monstrous  absurdity  ! ! !  Acts  xv.  22.  "  Then 
pleased  it  the  apostles  and  elders,  with  the  -whole  church,  to  send 
chosen  men  of  their  own  company  to  Antioch,  with  Paul  and 
Barnabas  ;  namely,  Judas,  surnamed  Barsabas,  and  Silas,  chief 
men  among  the  brethren.''  It  is  here  very  remarkable  that  the 
whole  church  was  gathered,  but  if  the  Jewish  church  was  meant, 
then  all  the  Jews  from  the  provinces  were  assembled.  The 
apostles  and  elders  are  here  represented  as  having  the  lead  of 
this  body  when  convened.  But  is  it  not  ridiculous  to  conceive 
of  the  apostles  having  the  government  of  the  Jewish  nation  in 
spiritual  affairs  ?  They  sent  chosen  men  of  their  own  company 
as  messengers,  and  also  Paul  and  Barnabas:  these  they  call 
"  brethren,"  and  their  "  own  company."  Can  we  conceive  of 
the  Jewish  nation  and  Sanhedrin  doing  thi3,  who  had  already 
crucified  Christ,  and  afterward  sought  the  life  of  Paul  ?  Yea, 
they  sent  these  to  christians  among  the  gentiles,  and  that  to 
advise  them  against  circumcision  :  Is  this  possible  ?  Yet  if  the 
church  spoken  of  at  Jerusalem  consisted  of  the  posterity  of 
Abraham  in  general,  and  the  apostles  were  members  of  it  and 
acted  as  such,  all  this  must  have  been  ;  but  if  this  is  not  so,  then 
how  shameful  in  Mr.  E.  to  assert,  that  the  converts  to  Christianity 
were  added  to  the  old  Abrahamic  church  !  Acts  viii.  3.  "  Saul 
made  havock  of  the  church."  Was  it  the  old  Jeivish  church 
Saul  made  havock  off  And  was  it  to  destroy  the  old  Jewish 
church  the  chief  priests  furnished  him  with  letters  to  Damascus  ? 
You  now  see,  my  brethren,  that  the  christian  church  was  a 
separate  and  independent  body ;  that  they  acted  without  con- 
sulting the  Jewish  rulers  and  nation ;  yea,  that  the  Jewish  nation 
and  rulers  were  its  persecutors,  and  by  them  was  the  church  of 
Christ  scattered  abroad,  and  the  apostles  put  to  death.  Then 
it  follows  of  course,  that  the  gentiles  were  not  grafted  into  this 
body,  nor  was  the  olive  tree  the  old  Jewish  establishment  of 
worship  and  membership.  Mr.  E.  has  used  the  words  "  church 
state,"  which  he  calls  the  olive  tree,  but  he  has  not  let  us  know 
what  he  means  by  it,  and  I  suspect  he  has  with  design  been 
obscure  on  this  point ;  yet  he  wishes  to  have  something  as  the 
olive  tree  into  which  the  Jewrs  were  as  natural  branches,  and 


123 

irom  which  some  of  them  were  broken  off,  in  whose  place  the 
gentiles  were  grafted  in.  If  by  this  olive  tree  or  church  state, 
is  meant  the  Jewish  worship  as  established  by  Moses,  then 
what  he  calls  the  broken  branches  were  never  separated  from 
that,  for  they  still  retain  their  Jewish  ceremonies  ;  neither  can 
it  be  said  with  any  appearance  of  truth,  that  the  gentiles  were 
ever  induced  to  receive  those  laws,  for  they  declared  against 
them,  and  were  declared  by  the  apostles  from  all  obligations  to 
them.  If  by  this  olive  tree  is  intended  the  old  Jewish  xvorship 
xis  changed,  and  the  institutions  of  Christ  taking  the  place  of 
those  brought  by  Moses  ;  then  this  will  not  agree,  for  what  he 
calls  the  broken  off  branches,  the  impenitent  Jews,  were  never 
in  this  olive  tree  really,  had  never  received  this  establishment 
bv  Christ,  and  therefore  could  not  be  broken  c^when  they  never 
were  in  it.  The  truth  of  the  matter  is,  that  the  distinction  he 
has  made  between  the  Jewish  church  and  church  state,  is  an 
idle  and  unmeaning  one,  and  designed  to  obviate  a  difficulty  he 
foresaw,.  For  if  he  had  insisted  the  Jewish  church  was  the 
olive  tree,  deriving  its  nourishment  from  the  institutions  and 
worship  established;  he  saw  how  ridiculous  the  assertion  would 
appear,  that  the  believing  gentiles  should  be  incorporated  into, 
and  considered  a  part  of  the  Jewish  commonwealth,  and  he 
knew  that  fact  would  contradict  him.  And  if  he  had  said  the 
olive  tree  was  the  worship  itself,  either  as  first  instituted  or  as 
declared  by  him  to  be  altered,  he  knew  that  the  Jews  as  a  body, 
had  never  received  Christ's  laws  and  government,  and  therefore 
could  not  be  broken  off :  and  was  sensible  that  they  were  never 
broken  off  from  the  Mosaic  laws,  but  still  retained  them,  and  that 
the  gentiles  never  were  grafted  into  Jewish  rites  ;  and  he  could 
not  help  seeing,  that  in  such  a  plant,  it  was  not  the  impenitent 
Jews  that  were  broken  off,  but  the  Jews  that  believed  in  Christ, 
for  they  only  have  been  separated  from  that  body.  From  hence 
he  preferred  the  using  of  a  word  to  which  he  could  attach  no 
meaning,  and  by  holding  up  a  something  he  knew  not  what,  in 
which  the  Jews  were  grafted,  he  amuses  himself  with  breaking 
off,  and  grafting  in  again,  to  the  no  small  confusion  of  himself 
and  readers. 

Into  the  Jewish  church  then,  the  gentiles  were  not  grafted, 
nor  yet  were  they  grafted  into  their  worship,  which  has  been 
abundantly  proved  in  what  has  been  said  ;  neither  have  the 
impenitent  Jews  been  broken  off  from  either  ;  nor  did  the  Jews 
receive  the  new  institutions  of  Christ  as  a  rule  for  the  whole 
nation,  and  as  such  practise  them,  but  on  the  contrary  did  reject 
them,  and  only  those  who  were  the  followers  of  Christ  were 
such  as  did  receive  them.  If  therefore,  the  gentiles  were  never 
grafted  into  the  Jewish  church,  nor  yet  into  the  worship  which 


124 

they  as  a  body  received,  how  can  it  be  said,  "  if  they  did  nqt. 
take  heed  they  would  be  broken  off?"  And  if  the  Jewish  nation 
did  not  receive  Christ's  institutions  in  the  place  of  those  Moses 
brought,  how  can  the  gentiles  be  said  to  have  been  "  grafted  in 
among  them  ?"  In  the  text,  the  gentiles  are  said  to  stand  by faith : 
but  no  faith  was  necessary  in  order  to  union  with  the  Jewish 
church ;  and  the  Jews,  in  like  manner,  are  said  to  have  been 
broken  off  for  unbelief  If  so,  the  Jewish  church  could  not  be 
intended,  because  their  union  with  that  was  by  birthright,  and 
not  for  any  spiritual  qualifications.  All  this  will  serve  to  shew, 
th#t  the  olive  tree  was  different  from  the  Jewish  church  or 
worship,  and  that  infants  could  never  be  contemplated  in  that 
establishment ;  for  whatever  requires  faith  in  order  to  an  union 
at  first,  or  to  retain  that  union  afterward,  is  entirely  incompa- 
tible with  infant  church  membership,  for  infants  cannot  have  it 
when  frst  added,  and  nineteen-twentieths  of  them  would  forfeit 
it  afterward, 

1.  The  olive  tree  mentioned  in  this  text  was  most  unques- 
tionably the  first  gospel  church  gathered  in  Jerusalem  by  the 
ministry  of  Christ  and  the  apostles.  2.  This  is  called  a  root, 
because  from  it  proceeded  all  other  churches  of  Christ,  as  a  tree 
grows  from  the  root ;  and  because  like  a  root  it  was  hidden, 
mean,  and  contemptible  in  its  appearance — called  also  the  first 
fruits,  as  it  was  in  reality  the  first  fruits  of  Christ's  gospel ;  and 
as  the  first  fruits  were  presented  as  a  part  and  earnest  of  the 
whole  harvest,  so  this  church  at  Jerusalem  was  an  earnest  of 
all  the  elect.  The  branches  of  this  olive  tree  were  the  individuals 
who  all  stood  in  relation  to  the  church  as  a  branch  does  to  the 
tree  ;  these  branches  are  said  to  be  like  the  root,  holy,  thereby 
shewing  that  the  converted  persons  only  were  in  the  church  of 
Jerusalem — the  same  being  called  the  first  fruits,  and  that  being 
jholy  ;  and  the  lump  said  to  be  as  the  first  fruits,  was  to  shew, 
that  the  real  church  of  Jesus  Christ  unto  the  end  of  time  was  to 
be  constituted  of  holy  persons,  and  all  others  not  to  be  reckoned 
among  them.  This  root  was  said  to  have  a  fatness  in  it ;  which 
intends  the  doctrines  and  ordinances  left  by  Christ  for  the 
nourishment  of  his  church.  These  branches  are  said  to  be 
grafted  in,  and  afterward  the  gentiles  among  them ;  for  the  word 
4  grafting,'  refers  to  both,  and  was  designed  to  shew,  that  no 
Jew,  as  such,  was  in  this  church  of  Jerusalem,  but  only  brought 
in  by  a  work  of  grace,  which  first  united  him  to  Christ,  and 
then  to  the  church,  of  which  grafting  was  a  suitable  emblem. 
3.  The  impenitent  Jews  were  not  said  to  be  grafted,  but  broken 
off :  this  was  to  shew,  that  they  had  a  natural,  but  not  a  spiritual 
relation,  to  those  Jews  that  constituted  the  church  at  Jerusalem  ; 
and  that  while  the  first,  were  grafted  into  the  church  of  Christ, 


125 

the  others  were  compared  to  broken  branches,  that  were  wither- 
ing ;  and  their  being  broken  off  signifies  nothing  more  than  a 
privation  of  the  gospel,  which  they  had  in  common  with  the  true 
church  at  Jerusalem.  4.  When  it  is  said,  the  broken  branches 
shall  be  grafted  in,  it  is  to  be  understood  of  the  gospel  being 
restored  to  them  in  the  latter  day ;  and  when  the  olive  tree,  or 
Jerusalem  church,  was  called  "  their  olive  tree,"  it  was  merely 
to  shew  the  natural  connection  that  subsisted  ;  for  the  members 
of  the  first  gospel  church  were  Jews,  and  hence  the  inference  of 
the  apostle,  that  (according  to  reason)  they  had  a  much  better 
right  to  expect  a  grafting  in  among  them,  than  the  gentiles  who 
had  always  been  considered  as  the  natural  enemies  of  the  Jews : 
and  all  this  was  to  shew  the  sovereignty  of  God.  The  only  thing 
in  the  interpretation  of  this  text  that  needs  enlarging  on,  is, 
whether  a  mere  privation  of  the  gospel  is  what  is  meant  by  a 
breaking  off,  as  it  relates  to  the  Jews.  This  will  appear  from 
Acts  xiii.  46,  47.  u  It  was  necessary  that  the  word  of  God 
should  first  have  been  spoken  to  you :  but  seeing  ye  put  it  from 
you,  and  judge  yourselves  unworthy  of  everlasting  life,  lo,  we 
turn  to  the  gentiles,  for  so  hath  the  Lord  commanded  us." 
"  Therefore  I  say  unto  you,  the  kingdom  of  God  shall  be  taken 
from  you,  and  given  to  a  nation  bringing  forth  the  fruits  thereof,'* 
Matth.  xxi.  43.  And  that  this  kingdom  of  God  which  was  to 
be  taken  away  and  given  to  the  gentiles,  was  the  gospel,  will 
appear  from  those  texts  where  preaching  of  the  gospel  is  called 
a  preaching  of  the  kingdom  of  God.  Luke  iv.  43.  "  I  must 
preach  the  kingdom  of  God  to  other  cities."  Luke  ix.  2.  u  And 
he  sent  them  to  preach  the  kingdom  of  GodP  It  is  in  another 
place  called  the  u  gospel  of  the  kingdom." 

Mr,  E,  says,  u  that  the  same  stock  from  which  the  branches 
were  broken  off,  even  into  that  were  the  gentiles  grafted." 
Very  well.  We  have  already  shewn  it  was  not  from  the  old 
Jewish  church  they  were  broken,  for  to  that  they  still  adhere  : 
but  it  was  frGm  the  enjoyment  of  the  gospel  which  they  first  had  ; 
and  truly,  the  gentiles  have  received  that  gospel  from  which  they 
have  been  broken  off.  He  likewise  observes,  that  u  they  shall 
be  grafted  into  the  same  state  from  which  they  were  broken  off," 
To  this  we  shall  not  object  neither  :  but  then  we  contend,  it  was 
not  from  the  Jewish  establishment  containing  infants,  for  with 
that  they  are  now  connected,  and  therefore  need  not  grafting  in 
again  ;  but  to  the  enjoyment  of  the  gospel  they  can  be  restored, 
and  will,  in  the  latter  day.  He  still  proceeds  to  say,  "  and  as 
infants  were  in  that  church  from  which  they  were  broken  off,  so 
they  will  be  in  the  church  to  which  they  shall  be  restored,  for  it 
is  the  same  church."  To  which  I  object  as  before,  that  the  first 
gospel  church  not  consisting  of  all  the  Jews,  but  only  of  believer^ 

R 


126 

infants  were  not  in  this  church  j  and  as  the  unbelieving  Jews 
were  so  far  broken  oft  as  to  be  deprived  of  the  gospel,  at  the 
restoration  they  shall  again  enjoy  it ;  and  the  church  of  Christ 
among  the  Jews  not  having  infants  in  it  then,  shall  not  have 
them  in  when  the  Jews  are  restored. 

As  the  first  church  of  Christ  was  collected  from  among  the 
Jews,  and  even  that  church  thus  collected  is  not  to  be  found  in 
this  day,  made  up  entirely  of  that  people,  but  even  their  posterity 
have  been  rejected,  so  that  the  whole  nation  is  literally  refused  ; 
what  that  church  at  Jerusalem  was,  such  shall  the  Jews  be 
when  restored :  and  as  our  opponents  have  not  proved,  and  I 
am  bold  to  say  cannot,  that  infants  were  in  it ;  neither  can  they 
prove  (as  he  asserts)  that  infants  will  be  in  it,  in  the  latter  day 
glory  of  the  church.  Let  Mr.  E.  or  any  of  his  brethren  shew, 
that  infants  were  in  the  Jerusalem  church,  and  then  the  dispute 
is  at  an  end.  Besides,  those  cut  off  from  the  church  here  spoken 
of,  were  cut  off  for  unbelief,  and  this  is  a  convincing  proof  that 
infants  could  not  have  been  connected  with  it ;  for  it  is  acknow- 
ledged that  they  could  not  disbelieve  or  reject  the  gospel :  hence 
this  text  of  scripture  overthrows  his  scheme  entirely  of  the 
gospel  church  having  infants  as  members.  Those  gentiles  that 
were  put  in  their  room,  are  said  to  stand  by  faith,  which  shews 
their  children  were  not  united  with  them  in  a  church  capacity  ; 
and  farther  shews,  that  to  keep  a  standing  in  the  gospel  church 
as  it  was  in  Jerusalem,  required  the  exercise  of  a  divine  faith  ; 
all  which  an  infant  cannot  have  while  in  infancy.  There  is  no 
way  of  evading  the  dilemma,  but  to  assert  that  the  right  of 
children  to  church  membership  depends  on  the  piety  of  the 
parent ;  and  that  a  parent  being  excluded,  his  exclusion  involves 
the  exclusion  of  his  child  :  a  doctrine  this,  which  our  opponents 
"will  not  venture  to  defend. 

"  For  he  is  our  peace,  who  hath  made  both  one,  and  hath 
broken  down  the  middle  wall  of  partition  between  us,"  Ephes. 
ii.  14.  This  Mr.  E.  advances  in  order  to  prove,  "  1.  That  the 
Jewish  church  continued  as  before,  and  was  not  dissolved  at  the 
calling  of  the  gentiles."  2.  That  the  gentiles  were  a  separate 
church,  "  and  were  not  formed  into  a  new  church,"  when  the 
partition  was  broken  down.  iC  3.  That  the  partition  taken  away 
united  them  both,  made  both  one  ;  and  that  because  adults  and 
infants  being  in  membership  among  the  Jews,  the  removal  of 
the  partition  brought  adults  and  infants  into  union  among  the 
gentiles." 

In  this  last  effort,  Mr.  E.  has  entirely  thrown  down  what  he 
before  had  laboured  hard  to  establish  ;  that  the  gentiles  were 
added  to  the  church  of  Jerusalem,  and  by  means  of  numbers,  at 
Jast  overwhelmed  the  Jewish  church,  tjntii  it  lost  its  name  and 


127 

became  gentile.  Now,  it  seems,  he  has  found  out  two- distinct 
churches  j  one  purely  gentile,  the  other  purely  Jewish,  and  both 
these  existing  at  one  and  the  same  time,  and  only  divided  from 
each  other  by  a  partition*  But  the  most  curious  part  of  the 
business  is,  that  these  two  churches,  according  to  him,  both 
existed  while  the  partition  was  still  standing.  I  always  thought 
that  this  partition  was  taken  away  when  Christ  died,  and  not  until 
then.  The  text  itself  says,  Ephes.  ii.  16.  "  That  he  might 
reconcile  both  unto  God  in  one  body  by  the  cross,  having  slain 
the  enmity  thereby  ;"  and  it  had  always  appeared  to  me,  that 
the  gospel  was  not  preached  to  the  gentiles  until  after  the 
resurrection  of  Christ,  and  that  there  was  not  a  gentile  church 
gathered  for  some  time  after  this  period.  Where  he  found  this 
gentile  church,  he  has  not  yet  condescended  to  say :  but  so  eager 
was  he  to  get  at  the  partition  and  pluck  it  up,  thereby  to  get  his 
little  Jewisn  infants  into  it ;  that  he  quite  forgot  there  was  not 
a  gentile  church  of  Christ  at  that  time  in  the  woild.  It  may  be 
that  the  gentleman  in  his  reveries,  was  transported  in  idea  to 
the  church  on  u  Mars  hill;"  and  so  pleased  was  he  with  their 
thousand  altars,  and  with  the  one  to  the  unknown.  God  in 
particular,  that  to  be  sure,  Jesus  Christ  must  have  been  meant 
as  the  God  referred  to  !  Or  perhaps  he  had  heard  the  noise  of 
the  great  Diana's  worshippers,  and  concluded,  so  much  zeal 
must  surely  belong  to  the  worshippers  of  Christ.  How  these 
gentiles  could,  according  to  his  first  statement,  as  they  embraced 
the  gospel,  unite  with  the  Jewish  church  by  degrees,  and  yet  at 
the  same  time  remain  separate,  and  then  all  at  once  (the  supposed 
partition  being  plucked  up)  become  united,  is  left  to  the  gentle- 
man to  make  plain  by  his  logical  propositions.  At  one  time, 
to  get  infants  into  the  church,  he  declares  the  gentiles  went  into 
the  Jewish  church  gradually  and  received  infant  membership 
there  ;  but  then,  suspecting  that  would  not  go  down,  he  has 
them  both  standing  with  a  partition  between  them,  he  plucks  it 
up  in  haste,  and  brings  all  the  Jews,  adults  and  infants,  right 
into  the  gentile  church.  Do  you  net  think,  reader,  that  the 
gentiles  must  have  been  at  their  wit's  end  when  they  saw  their 
church  thus  invaded  ?    How  did  they  manage  the  little  folks ! 

There  is  one  thing  more  that  did  not  strike  the  gentleman  at 
the  time.  He  concedes  the  point,  that  infants  were  not  in  the 
gentile  church  at  first,  and  that  they  were  not  in  it  until  the  Jews 
brought  them  there.  This  seems  to  look  as  if  the  gentiles  were 
not  very  favourable  to  infant  membership  ;  and  if  they  were  not 
over  powered  with  argument,  thev  certainly  were  with  numbers* 
This  text  was  an  unfortunate  one  for  Mr.  E.,  and  it  seems  as  it. 
he  put  it  into  our  hand  to  use  against  him  j  for  the  very  next. 


128 

terse  ruins  his  whole  interpretation,  thus  ;  "  For  to  make  in 
himself  of  twain  one  new  man,  so  making  peace,"  Eph.  ii.  15. 
—Now  this  church  so  made  is  called  a  new  man,  not  an  old 
man  as  the  Jewish  church  was  ;  but  a  new  man.  This  shews, 
that  in  taking  up  this  partition,  Jesus  dissolved  the  distinction 
between  the  Jew  and  gentile,  and  placed  them  on  a  level  as  to 
religious  rites ;  and  then,  out  of  both,  made  a  new  man  or  church, 
and  that  entirely  different  from  both  Pagan  and  J 'etuis h  institu- 
tions. If  he  had  brought  the  gentile  church  into  the  Jewish,  it 
would  have  been  but  an  old  man  after  all.  The  like  might  be 
said,  had  he  brought  the  Jewish  into  the  gentile  church,  (had 
such  a  church  existed)  it  would  still  have  been  nothing  more  than 
en  old  man.  But,  says  the  text,  it  is  a  new  man,  or  new  church ; 
•which  excludes  his  views  of  the  passage  entirely.  By  the  sepa- 
rating of  the  Jewish  nation  from  others,  and  they  receiving  as 
the  mark  of  that  national  election,  circumcision,  with  the  rituals 
of  the  ceremonial  law ;  the  Jews  became  proud,  and  insulted  the 
gentiles  on  all  occasions  that  offered,  so  that  the  most  determined 
enmity  existed.  But  God,  to  do  away  that  enmity,  says  the 
apostle,  abolished  those  national  distinctions  that  had  been 
necessary,  and  nailed  them  to  the  cross  of  his  Son  ;  for  in  his 
death  they  all  had  their  fulfilment :  and  now,  circumcision  and 
all  the  Jewish  rites  being  removed,  and  national  distinctions 
done  away,  by  which  peace  was  made  between  Jew  and  gentile, 
and  God  out  of  both  (not  one)  making  one  new  man,  or  church ; 
therefore,  he  (Christ)  is  called  our  peace,  or  peace  maker. 
This  entirely  sets  aside  the  notion  of  the  Jewish  church  state 
continuing. 

Mr.  E.  concludes  his  four  arguments  on  the  texts  already 
considered,  by  drawing  certain  inferences  which  he  deems  con- 
clusive in  his  favour  :  1.  That  no  law  can  be  found  in  the  New 
Testament,  that  repeals  the  church  membership  of  infants. 
2.  That  had  it  been  repealed,  the  Jews  who  were  tenacious  of 
their  customs,  would  not  have  been  silent :  but,  he  says,  no 
instance  can  be  produced  of  their  opposition  on  this  subject.  In 
answer  to  the  first,  it  will  be  sufficient  to  say,  that  as  infant 
membership  had  never  obtained  in  the  gospel  church,  there  was 
no  need  of  any  repealing  act :  but  to  authorize  their  admission 
into  the  gospel  church,  there  ought  to  have  been  a  particular 
law  in  their  favour ;  and  we  can  with  more  confidence  affirm, 
that  had  the  w  ill  of  Christ  been  that  infants  should  be  admitted, 
it  is  unaccountable  that  he  should  not  so  intimate.  That  the 
New  Testament  is  silent  about  this  matter  is  not  true  ;  which 
will  be  evinced  in  two  ways  :  first,  That  their  plea  has  been  set 
aside,  and  that  by  abrogating  the  whole  Jewish  ceremonial  law  j 


129 

and  as  circumcision  was  never  denied  to  be  a  ceremonial  precept? 
and  as  it  is  said  that  by  it  infants  were  initiated,  if  that  was  done 
Away,  their  membership  died  with  it. 

It  will  be  in  vain  to  say,  that  by  baptism  infants  were  after- 
ward initiated  ;  for  if  so,  some  instances  ought  to  be  furnished 
thereof,  as  express  as  the  circumcising  of  Jewish  infants.  "  The 
law  and  the  prophets  were  until  John  :  since  that  time  the 
kingdom  of  God  is  preached,  and  every  man  presseth  into  it," 
Luke  xvi.  16.  Here  the  date  is  fixed  when  it  ceased  (John's 
ministry).  Since  that  time,  (not  before)  every  man,  or  all  kinds 
of  men,  whether  Jew  or  gentile,  are  said  to  press  (not  to  be 
carried  in,  as  infants  must  be)  into  it ;  and  for  the  very  reason 
assigned  in  Eph.  ii.  15,  16.  that  Christ  had  u  abolished  in  his 
flesh  the  enmity,  even  the  law  of  commandments  contained  in 
ordinances,"  (Jewish  ordinances)  :  "  And  that  he  might  recon- 
cile both  unto  God,"  (Jew  and  gentile)  "  in  one  body  by  the 
cross."  Surely,  that  which  sets  aside  the  whole  ceremonial  law, 
must  have  affected  the  standing  of  infants,  especially  as  by  one  of 
those  abolished  ceremonies  (circumcision),  they  were  admitted, 
as  our  adversaries  affirm.  "  For  the  priesthood  being  changed, 
there  is  of  necessity  a  change  also  of  the  law,"  Heb.  vii.  12.  In 
this  text,  there  is  mentioned  a  change  in  the  membership  of  that 
church,  as  to  the  priesthood  ;  and  the  law  itself  is  said  to  be 
changed,  and  that  not  partially,  for  there  is  no  limiting  clause  : 
but  does  not  a  change  of  the  law,  by  which  their  right  was  first 
established,  affect  their  standing  ?  "  For  there  is  verily  a  dis- 
annulling of  the  commandment  going  before,  for  the  weakness 
and  unprofitableness  thereof.  For  the  law  made  nothing  perfect, 
but  the  bringing  in  of  a  better  hope  did,"  Heb.  vii.  18, 19.  This 
text  is  very  explicit.  The  Jewish  law  is  said  to  be  disannulled, 
repealed — the  reasons  of  this  repealing  were,  its  weakness,  and  its 
unprofitableness,  and  because  it  made  nothing  perfect.  Can  any 
one  pretend,  that  such  a  repealing  did  not  affect  the  standing  of 
infants  ?  M  For  the  law,  having  a  shadow  of  good  things  to  come, 
and  not  the  very  image  of  the  things,  can  never  with  those 
sacrifices,  which  they  offered  year  by  year  continually,  make  the 
comers  thereunto  perfect.  For  then  would  they  not  have  ceased 
to  be  offered  ? — Then  said  he,  lo,  I  come  to  do  thy  will,  O  God. 
He  taketh  away  the  first,  that  he  may  establish  the  second," 
Heb.  x.  1,  2.  9.  In  this  text,  the  law  ceremonial  is  called  a 
shadow,  because  it  is  empty,  fleeting,  perishable — designed  to 
make  known  the  substance  ;  for  there  can  be  no  shadow,  where 
a  substance  does  not  intervene  to  hinder  the  sun's  rays  :  hence, 
it  was  to  express  the  superior  excellency  of  the  gospel  dispen- 
sation.— God  is  said,  in  verse  6,  to  have  no  pleasure  in  them 


130  1 

^—Christ  is  then  said  to  take  away  the  first  dispensation,  te 
establish  the  second,  or  gospel  dspensation. 

1.  Taking  away  is  not  altering,  but  an  entire  re?novi?ig.  Will 
it  then  be  said  that  the  taking  away  a  law  by  which  infant  church 
membership  had  a  being,  does  not  do  away  that  rite  ?  u  Behold, 
the  days  come,  saith  the  Lord,  that  I  will  make  a  new  covenant 
with  the  house  of  Israel,  and  with  the  house  of  Judah  ;  not 
according  to  the  covenant  that  I  made  with  their  fathers  in  the 
day  that  I  took  them  by  the  hand,  to  bring  them  out  of  the  land 
ol  Egypt ;  (which  my  covenant  they  brake,  although  I  was  a 
husband  unto  them,  saith  the  Lord);  But  this  shall  be  the 
covenant  I  will  make  with  the  house  of  Israel;  after  those  days, 
saith  the  Lord,  I  will  put  my  law  in  their  inward  parts,  and 
write  it  in  their  hearts  ;  and  will  be  their  God,  and  they  shall 
be  my  people.  And  they  shall  teach  no  more  every  man  his 
neighbour,  and  every  man  his  brother,  sayings  know  the  Lord : 
for  they  shall  all  know  me  from  the  least  of  thtm  to  the  greatest 
of  them,  saith  the  Lord  :  for  I  will  forgive  their  iniquity,  and 
I  will  remember  their  sin  no  more,"  Jer.  xxxi.  31 — 33.  In  this 
most  conclusive  text,  we  have  it  declared  "  a  nenv  covenant" 
should  be  made  at  some  future  period.  This  covenant  was  the 
gospel  dispensation,  which  was  new,  not  only  in  order  of  time, 
but  also  as  to  church,  members,  ordinances.  2.  It  is  expresslv 
said  not  to  be  u  according  to  the  covenant  God  made  with  their 
fathers,"  The  covenant  made  with  their  fathers  was  delivered 
to  them  by  Moses,  (ordering  their  worship  and  institutions)  at 
Mount  Sinai.  Now,  this  gospel  covenant  was  not  to  be  like  that; 
jio,  not  in  any  wise  :  but  if  infant  church  membership  was 
retained,  it  was  like  it.  3.  This  difference  between  them  con- 
sisted in  the  law  of  God  u put  in  their  mind"  and  not  wrote  on 
tables  of  stone  as  the  former  was.  They  should  u  know  the 
Lord"  from  the  least  of  them  to  the  greatest ;  but  this  could  not 
be  the  case  if  infant  church  membership  remained  under  the 
gospel ;  for  then  many  would  be  without  the  knowledge  of  God. 
This  text  shews,the  gospel  church  was  to  be  made  up  of  renewed 
persons — they  were  to  be  "  pardoned"  persons  ;  all  of  which  is 
expressive  of  the  members  of  the  gospel  church  being  regene- 
rated, vend  justified  persons.  It  is  quoted  at  full  length  in  Heb. 
viii.  8 — 13. ;  from  which  we  learn  two  things  :  that  in  Paul's 
da)'  this  business  had  been  effected  ;  the  new  covenant  had  been 
made  with  the  spiritual  Israel  of  God  ;  and  therefore,  saith  he, 
u  he  hath  made  the  first  (covenant  made  with  Israel  when  they 
wrere  in  the  wilderness)  old  ■"  of  which  he  further  saith,  that  the 
first  covenant  had  "  decayed,  and  is  ready  to  vanish  away" 
That  which  is  "  decayed  or  rotten"  could  not  be  fit  for  use  :  so 
was  the  old  Jewish  law  in  ail  its  parts;  and  the  Builder  of  the 


131 

spiritual  temple  would  not  use  such  materials  in  his  new  church. 
That  which  "  vanishes"  is  not  to  be  seen,  no  traces  of  it  are  left: 
and  such  has  been  the  case  with  the  Jewish  dispensation  :  but  if 
any  part  remains,  it  has  not  vanished  away.  How  evident  it  is, 
then,  that  in  the  abrogation  of  the  whole  Jewish  system,  infant! 
membership  has  gone  with  it ;  and  this  is  the  more  evident,  as 
our  opponents  make  but  very  feeble  efforts  to  establish  their 
membership  from  the  New  Testament,  but  rest  their  defence  on 
that  very  abrogated  law.  Now,  if  Mr.  E.  asks  for  the  repealing 
law,  he  certainly  has  it  furnished  to  him. 

The  author  of  the  late  pamphlet  has  tried  to  evade  the  force 
of  these  texts,  by  denying  that  the  covenant  made  with  the 
children  of  Israel  at  Sinai,  was  the  same  with  that  made  with 
Abraham,  and  asserts  that  the  covenant  made  Avith  Arbaham  was 
distinct  from  it,  and  existed  long  before. — See  page  38.  This 
is  mere  evasion  ;  for  if  there  is  a  difference  it  only  consists  in 
the  covenant  being  made  first  with  Abraham  without  the  presence 
of  his  posterity ;  and  afterward  the  same  covenant  renewed  with 
his  posterity,  when  he  was  not  personally  present.  This  evasion 
would  prove  fatal  on  another  ground,  and  that  because  the 
promise  made  to  Abraham  xvas  made  before  he  had  any  posterity, 
Ishmael  excepted.  If,  therefore,  this  promise  or  covenant  was 
not  made,  with  all  his  posterity  in  him  ;■  then  it  was  made  with 
none  of  them,  and  Abraham  only  with  his  servants,  with  Ishmael 
must  have  been  in  that  church,  Gen.  xvii.  23  ;  and,  of  course, 
infant  church  membership  falls  to  the  ground  in  this  way. 
Besides  this,  every  thing  mentioned  in  the  covenant  with  Abra* 
ham,  was  also  mentioned  in  that  of  Sinai.  See  Gen.  xvii.  7. 
"  And  I  will  establish  my  covenant  between  me  and  thee,  and 
thy  seed  after  thee,  in  their  generations,  for  an  everlasting 
covenant ;  to  be  a  God  unto  thee,  and  to  thy  seed  after  thee," 
verse  10.  u  Every  man  child  among  you  shall  be  circumcised." 
See  also  Deut.  xxix.  9.  "  Keep,  therefore,  the  words  of  this 
covenant ;"  verse  13.  "  that  he  may  establish  thee  to-day  for  a 
people  unto  himself,  and  that  he  may  be  unto  thee  a  God,  as  he 
hath  said  unto  thee,  and  as  he  hath  sworn  unto  thy  fathers,  to 
Abraham,  to  Isaac,  and  to  Jacob."  Josh.  v.  2.  "  At  that  time 
the  Lord  said  unto  Joshua,  make  thee  sharp  knives,  and  circum- 
cise again  the  children  of  Israel  the  second  time."  From  which 
it  may  be  readily  seen,  that  the  covenant  made  with  Abraham 
was  indeed  that  which  was  afterward  renewed  with  Israel  at 
Horeb,  word  for  word,  and  even  those  expressions  on  which 
most  reliance  is  placed,  were  in  this  Horeb  covenant,  "  I  will 
be  a  God  unto  thee" 

If,  then,  the  covenant  made  with  Israel  at  Horeb,  was  the 
same  in  all  respects  as  that  made  with  Abraham ,  and  if  that  very 


132 

covenant  has  vanished  away ;  how  futile  the  remark  that  they 
were  two  different  covenants,  and  that  only  one  has  vanished  ! 
All  Abraham's  posterity  were  included  in  that  covenant  made 
with  him,  and  it  was  with  his  poserity  this  Horeb  covenant  was 
renewed.  Now,  if  from  the  date  of  the  Horeb  covenant,  and 
so  onward  to  the  gospel  time,  their  posterity  were  bound  by  that 
covenant,  and  that  to  all  intents  and  purposes  the  same  as 
Abraham,  and  that  has  now  vanished  ;  who  does  not  see  that 
the  Jewish  church  has  been  finally  dissolved  ? — If  the  publisher 
wished  to  gain  any  thing  by  the  distinction  he  made,  he  ought 
to  have  made  it  appear,  that  the  covenants  in  question  were  not 
alike,  and  that  the  latter  was  not  a  mere  repetition,  or  renewal 
of  the  former. 

To  Mr.  E.  I  again  say,  that  the  plea  of  the  posterity  of 
Abraham  to  circumcision,  though  valid  as  to  that  rite,  was 
absolutely  insufficient,  and  therefore  refused  when  urged  in 
order  to  baptism  ;  see  Matth.  iii.  9.  "  Think  not  to  say  within 
yourselves,  we  have  Abraham  to  our  father."  Verse  8.  "  Bring 
forth  fruit  meet  for  repentance."  This  text  proves  that  a  plea 
which  could  not  have  been  rejected  as  to  admission  into  the 
Jewish  church,  or  in  relation  to  the  ordinance  of  circumcision, 
was  not  thought  sufficient  by  John  to  warrant  him  to  baptize. 
It  is  also  certain,  that  the  persons  who  came  thought  their  right 
a  good  one,  and  urged  it  on  John,  but  urged  it  in  vain.  The 
only  answer  that  Mr.  E.  can  make  to  this,  is,  that  the  persons 
who  came  to  John  were  adults,  and  that  repentance  was  required 
of  such ;  but  that  if  infants  had  been  brought  with  that  plea,  they 
would  not  have  be^n  rejected.  This  gloss  affords  no  relief ;  for 
the  argument  respects  church  membership  under  the  former 
dispensation,  Warranting  church  membership  under  the  present. 
But  if  an  adult  Jew,  on  application,  would  have  received 
circumcision,  though  it  were  manifest  he  had  no  grace  ;  and  yet 
the  same  person  would  not  have  received  baptism,  then  the 
evidence  is  undeniable,  that  there  needed  more  to  fit  a  person 
for  a  gospel  church,  than  for  the  Jewish — and  all  this  must 
destroy  infant  baptism. 

Mr.  E.'s  second  conclusion  is  equally  void  of  correctness  ; 
that  no  opposition  was  made  by  the  Jews  to  the  gospel,  on 
account  of  infants  not  being  admitted  into  the  gospel  church,  as 
they  had  been  in  the  Jewish.  Though  no  mention  is  made 
particularly,  it  stands  on  the  same  ground  widi  other  things  that 
are  admitted  to  have  been  abrogated,  and  that  uvenot  in  the  scrip* 
tures  mentioned  as  objected  to  by  the  Jews  in  particular.  But 
if  the  Jews  thought  that  Christ  had  come  to  destroy  the  whole 
law,  and  opposed  him  on  that  broad  basis,  without  entering  into 
detail ;  can  it  be  said  they  did  not  object  to  this,  when  they  did 


133 

to  the  whole  ?  The  constitution  of  this  country  secures  to  every 
child,  born  in  the  land,  the  right  of  citizenship.  Noav,  if  persons 
were  thought  to  be  attempting  the  destruction  of  the  whole 
instrument,  and  the  good  citizens  opposed  their  apparently 
A'illainous  designs  against  the  whole  bill  of  rights  ;  would  any 
one  take  it  in  his  head  to  say,  that  these  citizens  were  not 
tenacious  of  the  rights  of  their  children,  because  they  did  not 
dwell  on  their  case  in  particular  ?  Yet,  such  is  the  reasoning  of 
Mr.  E.  That  the  Jews  thought  Christ  and  his  apostles  to  be 
unfriendly  to  their  whole  establishment,  and  opposed  him  on 
that  ground,  will  appear  thus  :  u  This  fellow  persuadeth  men 
to  worship  God  contrary  to  the  law,"  Acts  xviii.  13.  u  Men  of 
Israel,  help  :  this  is  the  man  that  teacheth  all  men  every  where 
against  the  people,  and  the  law,  and  this  place,"  Acts  xxi.  28. 

Mr.  E.  produces  Mark  ix.  36.  "  And  he  took  a  child,  and 
set  him  in  the  midst  of  them  :  and  when  he  had  taken  him  in  his 
arms  he  said  unto  them,"  (Luke  ix.  45.)  "  whosoever  shall 
receive  this  child  in  my  name,  receiveth  me."  He  concludes 
that  this  child  must  have  been  an  infant,  from  the  circumstance 
of  Christ  taking  him  in  his  arms  ;  and  then  infers,  that  the 
receiving  of  him  must  not  be  merely  as  an  infant,  but  as  one 
belonging  to  Christ,  as  a  member  of  his  church,  and  that  the  child 
was  to  be  received  in  that  capacity.  The  design  of  Christ  in 
setting  this  child  in  the  midst  ought  not  to  be  forgotten  ;  for,  the 
disciples  had  been  contending  about  pre-eminence,  and  the 
setting  of  a  child  in  the  midst  of  them  was  to  teach  them  to  be 
as  meek  and  inoffensive  as  a  child ;  so  that  if  an  infant  had  been 
intended,  the  utmost  we  could  learn  would  be  the  moral  couched 
under  it,  which  was,  that  whoever  of  the  disciples  could  act 
most  with  the  meekness  pf  a  child,  would  be  the  greatest  among 
them  ;  but  this,  at  last,  would  not  be  a  warrant  for  infant  church 
membership.  The  child  here  spoken  of  was  not  an  infant ;  but 
a  young  person  that  was  a  believer  in  Christ,  for  in  Matth. 
xviii.  2,  3,  4 — 6.  the  same  narrative  is  given  ;  which  at  once 
clears  the  difficulty,  thus  :  "  And  Jesus  called  a  little  child  unto 
him,  and  set  him  in  the  midst  of  them,  and  said,  verily  I  say 
unto  you,  except  ye  be  converted,  and  become  as  little  children, 
ye  shall  not  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  Whosoever, 
therefore,  shall  humble  himself 4  as  this  little  child]  the  same  is 
greatest  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  But  whoso  shall  offend  one 
of  these  little  ones  which  believe  in  me,  it  were  better,"  &c.  This 
text  Mr.  E.  omitted,  no  doubt,  with  design  ;  for  had  he  quoted 
it,  the  difficulty  would  have  vanished  at  once.  The  text  speaks 
of  this  little  child  humbling  himself,  words  never  applicable  to 
infants  ;  and  this  little  one  is  also  called  a  believer  in  Christy 
which  bv  no  means  agree?  with  an  infant.  Samuel  and  Timothy 

S 


134 

arc  such  instances  of  early  piety ;  and  very  early  in  life,  many  are 
made  the  subjects  of  a  divine  call  in  the  present  day.  It  was 
such  an  one  Christ  took  in  his  arms,  whom  he  stiled  a  believer, 
commended  for  humility,  recommended  as  an  example  to  his 
disciples,  and  of  whom  he  declared,  that  in  receiving  such,  he 
was  received*  But  the  text  also  says,  that  Jesus  "  called  him  ;'* 
thereby  manifesting,  that  this  child  was  capable  of  reflection, 
and  was  able  of  his  own  accord  to  come  to  him.  It  is  not  said  he 
called  for  the  child.  All  the  reasoning  of  Mr.  E.  as  applied  to 
this  child  we  are  not  disposed  to  reject ;  for  such  as  he  are  in 
reality  in  connection  with  the  church  of  God.  But  as  a  mere  infant 
was  not  intended,  his  conclusions  must  all  of  them  be  false. 

We  refer  next  to  Mark  x.  14.  "  But  when  Jesus  saw  it,  he 
was  much  displeased,  and  said  unto  them,  Suffer  the  little 
children  to  come  unto  me,  and  forbid  them  not:  for  of  such  is  the 
kingdom  of  heaven."  That  a  child  is  proposed  as  an  emblem 
of  a  christian  cannot  be  doubted,  not  because  it  is  in  possession 
of  divine  grace,  but  on  account  of  its  weakness,  dependance,  and 
passiveness  ;  reference  to  which  is  found  in  Matth.  xviii.  3. 
u  Except  ye  be  converted  and  become  as  a  little  child,  ye  shall 
not  enter  into  thekingdom  of  heaven."  Of  such,  therefore,  who 
resemble  little  children  in  the  above  sense  spiritually,  are  the 
kingdom  of  heaven,  Mr.  E.  thinks  that  in  the  interpretation  of 
this  text,  all  depends  on  the  meaning  of  the  words  kingdom  of 
heaven  ;  he  does  not  seem  to  remember  more  than  two  senses  in 
which  it  is  taken  in  the  scriptures,  one  or  the  other  he  thinks 
must  apply  to  them  ;  these  are,  u  the  church"  and  everlasting 
vi  glory"  both  of  which  he  determines  to  make  subserve  the 
interests  of  his  cause.  If  the  first  is  meant,  then  his  cause  is 
gained,  and  it  would  follow  they  were  in  the  church.  It  is 
however  unfortunate  for  him,  that  if  they  were  in  the  church, 
the  disciples  did  not  know  it,  or  certainly  they  would  not  have 
disputed  their  right  therein.  Will  any  man  believe  that  these 
little  babes  were  members  of  the  church  of  Christ,  and  yet  the 
apostles  remain  ignorant  of  it ;  especially  when  Mr.  E.  affirms, 
that  the  membership  of  infants  was  so  familiar  to  them,  that  they 
"  naturally  looked  for  it  r"  But,  says  he,  the  Baptists  admit 
they  are  of  the  kingdom  of  glory,  and  if  they  are  a  part  of  the 
T.hurch  triumphant,  then  they  must  be  fit  for  the  church  on  earth. 
The  Baptists  admit  a  part  of  what  is  here  stated,  but  not  all ; 
they  indeed  believe  that  all  infants  dying  in  infancy  are  saved : 
but  then  all  infants  do  not  die  in  infancy ;  many  of  them  grow- 
up  to  men's  estate,  live  wicked  lives,  and  die  miserable.  If 
those  only  are  to  be  baptized  that  die  in  infancy  and  go  to  heaven, 
how  do  our  Pcedobaptist  brethren  mean  to  find  them  out  ?  will 
they  wait  until  they  are  deceased,  and  then  administer  the 


135 

ordinance  ?  Or,  do  they  think  they  have  a  spirit  of  discernment 
and  can  distinguish  them  from  others  ?  But  if  not,  and  baptism 
is  to  be  inferred  from  glorification,  is  it  not  absurd  to  baptize  all 
that  come  in  their  way  indiscriminately  I  In  what  a  situation 
are  our  opponents  placed,  if  they  infer  their  membership  from 
the  church  being  called  the  kingdom  of  God !  That  will  not  dof 
for  the  church  did  not  know  them,  and  were  angry  on  account  of 
their  being  brought.  If  they  infer  it  from  children  dying  in 
infancy,  this  likewise  fails  them;  for  they  know  not  who  they 
are  that  shall  die  until  they  are  actually  deceased,  and  then  it  is 
too  late.  And  if  they  in  their  great  charity  will  baptize  all,  in 
order  to  find  out  the  right  ones ;  then  they  must  of  course  baptize 
thousands  who  will  live  wicked  lives,  and  never  enter  glory. 
What  then  will  they  do  ?  In  all  their  arguments  in  favour  of 
baptizing  infants,  they  infer  their  meetness  from  a  supposed 
holiness  in  them  ;  and  yet  in  their  sermons  they  are  piously 
preaching  the  doctrine  of  human  depravity,  and  insist  that 
infants  are  under  the  ruins  of  the  fall,  and  have  all  the  latent 
principles  of  corruption  in  them.  Is  it  not  singular  to  hear  such 
contradictions  from  men  of  sense  ?  And  is  it  not  strange  that  an 
incapacity  to  commit  actual  sin,  while  all  the  dispositions  to 
sinful  actions  are  within,  should  be  considered  the  same  as  the 
renovation  of  the  heart  by  the  Holy  Spirit  I  And  yet  such  incon- 
sistencies are  found  in  our  opponents. 

The  author  of  the  Sermon  tries  to  be  witty,  and  says  the 
Baptists  act  ridiculously  in  asserting  that  children  in  humility 
are  intended  ;  for,  adds  he,  u  What  should  we  think  of  a  man 
that  should  say  to  his  servant :  Suffer  the  sheep  and  lambs  to- 
come  unto  me  and  forbid  them  not,  for  of  such  is  the  kingdom 
of  heaven."  It  may  seem  ridiculous  to  this  author  that  good 
men  should  be  called  lambs  and  sheep,  and  he  may  make  himself 
merry  with  it :  but  that  he  may  not  langii  too  loud,  nor  too  longr 
I  present  him  with  these  scripture  declarations  as  a  reply,  and 
wish  him  in  reading  them,  much  entertainment :  u  He  shall 
gather  his  lambs  with  his  arm,  and  carry  them  in  his  bosom," 
Isaiah  xL  11.  u  My  sheep  hear  my  voice,  and  they  follow 
me,"  John  x.  27.  He  states  the  same  argument  that  we  have 
seen  advanced  above  from  Mark  ix.  56,  37.  and  Luke  ix.  4. ; 
but,  like  Mr.  E.,  has  fraudulently  kept  back  the  parallel  passage 
in  Matth.  xviii.  3 — 6.  where  that  same  little  child  is  called  a 
believer  in  Christ.  Is  this  honesty  in  these  gentlemen  ?  Would 
they  be  thought  to  be  searching  after  truth  ?  Is  not  this  handling 
the  word  of  God  deceitfully  ?  Why  could  not  the  gentleman  find 
the  last  quoted  text?  Was  it  not  design  in  him,  knowing  that  all 
the  inferences  he  afterwards  draws  would  then  he  false  ?  But  he 
associates  the  "  ktik  children"  that  were  brought  to  Christ,  as 


136 

mentioned  in  Mark  x.  14.  with  the  u  little  child"  that  was  called 
by  Christ,  and  whom  he  calls  a  believer,  Matth.  xviii.  3 — 6.  ; 
and  then  he  completely  wrests  the  sacred  text,  by  taking  so 
much  of  the  last  passage  as  "  whosoever  receiveth  one  of  such 
children"  which  he  applies  to  the  child,  who  was  not  brought, 
but  came  himself  to  Christ,  and  of  whom  Christ  testified  he  was 
a  believer,  and  confounds  with  it  the  children  mentioned  in  Mark 
x.  14.  who  were  said  to  be  brought  to  him"  These  words, 
**  whosoever  receiveth  one  of  such  children"  are  not  found  in 
the  last  quoted  text ;  and  for  this  plain  reason,  that  these  last 
were  in  reality  infants,  and  not  of  the  church  of  God  :  but  the 
first  was  a  believer,  and  as  such  a  disciple,  and  therefore  those 
that  received  him,  received  his  Master. 

He  continues,  "  Since  then  Christ  would  have  us  receive 
little  children  in  his  name,  as  belonging  to  him,  and  declares 
that  in  so  doing,  we  receive  him  ;  when,  therefore,  a  believer 
offers  his  child  to  the  church,  to  be  received  by  baptism,  as 
belonging  to  Christ,  shall  they  thus  despise  Christ's  little  ones?" 
The  gentleman  is  still  going  wrong.  It  was  not  the  little 
children  brought  to  Christ  in  Mark  x.  14.  we  are  to  receive  ; 
but  little  believing  children,  as  in  Matth.  xviii.  3 — -6.  "who  came 
to  Christ  when  called :  these  are  to  be  received  ;  and,  when  a 
believer  brings  his  believing  offspring,  we  have  a  warrant  to 
baptize  them  :  but  when  they  bring  their  babes,  such  as  will 
be  guided  by  Christ's  example,  must  do  no  more  than  touch 
them,  or  at  most  put  their  hand  on  them  and  pray. 

This  author,  page  23,  thinks  it  impertinent  in  a  Baptist  to  ask 
such  questions,  "  Why  Christ  did  not  baptize  them,  if  they  were 
proper  subjects  ?"  Why,  sir,  so  much  afraid  of  being  questioned ; 
does  it  arise  from  a  consciousness,  that  you  are  not  able  to  meet 
inquiry  fairly,  and  that  you  would  be  entangled  ?  Rude,  how- 
ever, as  it  may  seem,  we  must  request  an  answer.  Gentlemen 
are  very  condescending  in  shifting  their  business  off  themselves 
on  us.  He  says,  u  If  they  were  not  baptized,  it  is  the  business 
of  the  Baptists  to  shew  they  were  not."  But,  sir,  what  are  you 
arguing  about  ?  Did  you  not  promise  to  make  it  appear  that 
infants  were  baptized,  and  did  you  not  bring  this  very  passage 
in  proof  of  it  ?  Yet  now  you  are  reduced  to  the  necessity  of 
taking  the  silence  of  the  text  for  conclusive  evidence,  and  of 
putting  it  on  us  to  prove  a  negative.  You  tell  us,  that  you 
produce  this  passage  to  demonstrate  their  membership,  and 
from  that  infer  their  baptism  ;  yet  you  tell  us  again,  that  persons 
may  be  members  without  baptism,  "  that  baptism  could  not  be 
thought  necessary  before  the  church  was  finally  settled."  At 
one  time  you  say  that  baptism  is  "  the  door  of  the  church," 
and  as  you  by  some  means  found  them  in  it,  they  must  have 


137 

come  in  through  the  door :  but  now  you  have  placed  them  there 
without  coming  in  at  the  door  at  all.  After  all,  it  seems, 
baptism  is  a  door,  and  it  is  no  door :  it  is  the  way  into  the 
church,  and  yet  infants  may  go  into  the  church  without  it. 
Such  are  the  contradictions  of  this  convincing  writer.  But,  he 
says,  the  text  plainly  asserts,  "  that  infants  belong  to  the 
church*'1  Is  the  gentleman  serious  when  he  says,  that  it  is 
indeed  plainly  asserted  ?  No  such  thing,  sir  ;  the  church  is  not 
once  mentioned  in  the  text,  nor  yet  is  membership  once  adverted 
to ;  nor  are  there  any  hints  about  their  eligibility  to  such  a 
station.  The  author  thinks  the  silence  of  Christ  at  this  time  is 
in  his  favour.  He  says,  "  if  they"  (meaning  infants)  "  were 
not  to  be  baptized,  this  was  the  time  for  Christ  to  have  said  so." 
Had  these  children  been  brought  to  Christ  with  a  request  he 
would  baptize  them,  there  would  be  some  appearance  of  reason 
in  this  :  but  as  they  were  brought  to  him  to  receive  his  blessing 
onlv,  there  was  nothing  to  lead  to  such  a  conversation.  If, 
however,  the  gentleman  is  disposed  to  draw  conclusions  from 
silence,  I  will  furnish  him  with  a  text  in  Acts  viii.  12.  "  They 
were  baptized  both  men  and  women."  If  it  is  true,  that  the 
apostles  baptized  believers  and  their  offspring,  why  were  not 
their  children  mentioned  here,  and  especially  when  an  account 
was  given  of  those  that  were  baptized,  and  even  the  sexes 
mentioned  ? 

In  page  21,  this  writer  observes,  that  by  the  kingdom  of 
heaven  in  Mark  x.  14.  u  the  church  is  plainly  meant,"  and  he 
says  further,  "  Nor  is  it  denied  by  any  that  I  know  of :  and  I 
think  it  is  the  visible  church."  Do  you  say  what  is -true,  sir, 
that  you  know  of  none  that  deny  this  to  be  the  meaning  of  the 
text?  Surely  you  must  know  to  the  contrary,  and  that  the 
increasing  thousands  of  Baptists,  both  here  and  in  Europe,  deny 
it  to  be  the  sense.  How  then,  can  you  sport  with  your  readers, 
and  with  the  truth,  in  this  manner  ?  If  your  meaning  were, 
that  no  advocate  for  infant  church  membership  denied  this, 
ought  you  not  to  have  been  more  explicit :  The  last  part  of 
this  extraordinary  quotation  deserves  a  smile  :  u  I  think"  This 
opinion  of  yours,  sir,  must  fix  the  sense  of  the  passage  ;  and  the 
Baptists,  after  this,  must  not  demur,  but  receive  the  evidence  as 
conclusive.  But,  sir,  if  the  question  will  not  by  you  be  deemed 
u  impertinent,"  what  reason  have  you  to  "  think"  that  the  king- 
dom of  heaven  in  the  text,  means  the  church  ?  Will  you  decline 
giving  an  answer  to  this  ?  Is  it  not  stealing  out  at  the  back  door, 
to  say  "  the  texts  are  so  many  that  may  be  quoted  ?"  Well,  let 
us  have  one  at  least.  What,  sir,  not  one  of  the  "  numerous 
passages  I''  Why  so  coy  ?  I,  sir,  will  speak  for  you,  and  teach 
the  reader  the  cause  of  this  untimely  silence.     The  phrase 


138 

kingdom  of  heaven  is  taken  in  different  senses.  It  means 
the  gospel,  Matth.  ix.  35. — grace  in  the  heart,  Luke  xvii.  21.-— 
the  gospel  church,  Matth.  xi.  11. — and  a  state  of  glory,  Luke 
xi.  32.  But  the  gentleman  wished  to  insinuate  there  was  one 
sense,  and  only  one,  that  thereby  he  might  lead  his  little  ones 
into  the  church.  That  the  '  kingdom  of  heaven,'  in  the  text  he 
refers  to  cannot  mean  the  church  is  evident,  because  the  apostles 
nvere  displeased  with  infants  being  brought ;  they  did  not  own 
them  in  that  relation,  or  how  could  this  conduct  of  theirs  be 
accounted  for  ?  And  if  Christ  had  urged  them  to  receive  the 
children  of  believers,  and  such  had  before  been  in  the  church, 
why  should  they  be  so  displeased  with  the  parents  for  bringing 
them  ?  Had  it  been  true  of  those  infants  in  particular,  that  they 
possessed  grace  in  the  heart,  yet  it  is  not  true  of  all  the  infants 
of  believers  ;  and  this  can  never  therefore,  be  a  reason  why  all 
infants  are  to  be  received  into  the  church :  much  less  can  modern 
preachers  point  out  those  little  subjects  of  grace  as  Christ  could, 
who  was  omniscient,  and  infallible.  Subjects  of  a  gospel  address 
they  could  not  be,  for  they  were  not  capable  of  hearing  it ;  and 
this  shews  they  were  not  fit  for  a  gospel  church,  inasmuch  as 
they  are  incapable  of  its  duties.  In  the  kingdom  of  glory  they 
appear,  yet  not  all  infants  ;  for  all  do  not  die  in  infancy  :  but  it 
Is  truly  impertinent  to  assert  the  right  of  all,  or  of  any  infants  to 
baptism,  merely  because  those  who  die  in  infancy  are  saved* 
Well,  sir,  after  all,  the  business  is  not  so  plain  as  you  would 
have  your  readers  believe  ;  neither  have  you  as  yet  proved  they 
were  at  all  in  the  church*  If  we  ask  a  Pcedobaptist  where  he 
finds  his  proof  that  infants  were  baptized,  he  immediately  hands 
out  this  text,  "  Suffer  the  little  children  to  come  unto  me,"  and 
insists  it  was  to  receive  baptism.  We  object  to  this,  by  saying, 
the  text  makes  no  mention  of  his  baptizing  of  them,  but  only 
44  touching"  or  "  laying-  his  hands  on  them  ;"  that  Christ  did 
not  baptize  them,  for  he  baptized  no  one,  not  even  believers, 
John  iv.  2. ;  and  that  the  disciples  did  not  baptize  them,  because 
they  were  for  driving  them  away  ;  all  which  plainly  shews  they 
were  not  in  the  practice  of  infant  baptism.  Mr.  E.  has  seen  the 
perplexity  of  his  brethren  here,  and  to  relieve  them,  he  has  so 
far  shifted  the  argument,  as  to  infer  the  membership  of  infants 
from  the  circumstance  of  their  being  brought,  and  then  their 
baptism  from  their  membership ;  and  the  author  of  this  pamphlet 
being  in  reality  a  mere  imitator  of  Mr.  E.,  has  retailed  out  his 
arguments,  and  claimed  them  as  his  own. 

In  this  sermon  it  is  affirmed,  that  "  Christ  gave  them  as  sure 
a  token  of  church  membership  as  baptism  itself,  when  he  laid 
his  hands  on  them  and  blessed  them."  This  goes  to  say  that 
the  act  of  laying  on  of  hands,  was  to  signify  the  party  to  be  a 


139 

member,  or,  that  it  was  a  rite  in  use,  and  by  Christ  exercised 
on  all  church  members  j  for  if  it  was  not  done  to  all,  it  could  be 
no  evidence  of  membership,  and  if  it  was  not  a  gospel  rite  and 
in  constant  practice,  then  it  could  not  be  an  evidence  of  church 
membership.     But  surely,  this  argument  was  used  only  as  an 
artifice  ;  nor  does  he  consider  that  act  as  a  religions  rite,  and 
obligatory  on  all  that  enter  into  church  relation.     That  he  does 
not  consider  imposition  of  hands  on  baptized  persons  as  such, 
as  necessary  to  entitle  them  to  membership,  is  evident ;  for  it 
is  well  known  that  the  society  with  which  that  gentleman  stands 
connected,  does  not  hold  the  laying  on  of  hands  on  baptized 
persons,  to  introduce  them  into  the  church  ;  neither  does  the 
gentleman  himself  practise  it,   But  if  he  viewed  it  as  a  religious 
rite,  why  not  practise  it?  and  if  he  considered  no  person  admitted 
anciently  without  it,  why  deviate  at  this  time  ?  But  if  he  thought 
it  were  not  necessary  to  church  membership,  what  force  could 
it  have  in  this  case  ?  Why  advance  it  to  prove  membership,  when 
persons  might  be  members  without  it  ?  The  gentleman's  practice 
is  the  best  comment  on  this,  and  shews  what  his  real  sentiment 
is,  and  that  he  does  not  consider  it  as  a  religious  rite.     In  one 
of  the  texts  he  quotes,  it  is  said  Christ  M  touched  them,"  and  ia 
the  other,  "  that  he  might  lay  his  hands  on  them :"  the  inference 
is,  that  this  imposition  of  hands  was  a  token  of  membership. 
It  will,  however,  appear  from  these  following  texts,  that  persons 
were  touched  and  had  hands  laid  on  them,  to  confer  temporal 
blessings  only,  where  spiritual  blessings  were  not  in  question: 
and  therefore  it  is  not  true,  that  imposition  Gf  hands  is  the 
evidence  of  the  person  being  in  the  church  of  God  :    "  And  he 
touched  her  hand  and  the  fever  left  her,5'  Maith.  viii.  15.  "  He 
put  forth  his  hand  and  touched  him,  and  saith  unto  him,  I  will, 
be  thou  clean,5'  Mark  i.  41.     These  passages  shew  that  where 
Christ  is  said  to  touch  a  person,  it  may  be  to  remove  a  bo- 
dily complaint  only,  and  convey  a  temporal  blessing,  and  is 
no  evidence  of  church  membership  at  all.     But  would  any  one 
infer  the  membership  of  these  persons  from  Christ  touching 
them  ?  Equally  ridiculous  is  it  on  this  ground  to  infer  that  of 
infants,  "  And  they  bring  unto  him  one  that  was  deaf,  and  had 
an  impediment  in  his  speech  ;  and  they  beseech  him  to  put  his 
hand  upon  him,"  Mark  vii.  32.   Here  the  two  cases  are  parallel; 
they  bring  the  man — so  persons  brought  the  infants ;    they 
beseech  him  to  put  his  hand  on  him-^-the  others  asked  the  same 
thing.      In  the  first  case,  a  bodily  blessing  only  is  conveyed, 
which  shews  it  vras  no  religious  rite  :  neither  can  it  be  proved 
that  these  infanta  were  not  diseased,  and  did  not  in  like  manner, 
receive  a  corporeal  blessing.  £te  that  as  it  may,  tins  abundantly 


140 

demonstrates,  that  Christ  laying  on  his  hand  was  no  religious 
rite,  and  did  not  imply  church  membership. 

In  page  22  of  the  same  author,  there  is  a  most  curious  exhibi- 
tion given  of  this  business  ;  wherein  he  represents  the  disciples 
to  be  contending  about  infant  membership,  and  to  find  fault 
with  Christ  on  account  of  his  allowing  the  privilege  of  infants  to 
be  equal  with  theirs  ;  and  he  represents  Christ  as  sharply 
rebuking  them  on  that  account :  but,  in  another  part  of  his  book, 
he  declares  that  they  never  had  any  difficulty  on  the  subject  of 
infant  membership,  but  always  understood  it  to  be  their  right. 
Now,  as  the  best  answer,  is  to  shew  how  he  contradicts  all  this, 
I  will  set  one  part  of  his  book  against  the  other.  Page  22,  "  The 
disciples  were  much  disposed  to  stand  on  their  distinctions. 
They  seemed  to  think,  that  they  had  a  clearer  and  better  title  to 
the  privileges  of  Messiah's  kingdom  than  infants.  They  were 
actual  believers  and  followers  of  Christ  j  which  could  not  be 
said  of  babes."  For  the  contradiction,  see  page  25  and  26. 
"  For,  let  it  be  remembered,  that  the  apostles  had  been  educated 
in  the  Jewish  church,  of  which  infants  had  been  all  along 
undoubted  members.  They  understood  that  the  membership 
of  such  had  never  been  called  in  question,  since  there  had  been 
a  church  in  the  world." 

We  now  return  to  Mr.  E.  and  consider  his  reasonings  on 
Acts  ii.  38,  39.  "  Then  Peter  said  unto  them,  Repent,  and  be 
baptized  every  one  of  you  in  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ,  for  the 
remission  of  your  sins,  and  ye  shall  receive  the  gift  of  the  Holy 
Ghost.  For  the  promise  is  unto  you,  and  to  your  children,  and 
to  all  that  are  afar  off,  even  as  many  as  the  Lord  our  God  shall 
call."  Mr.  E.  says,  that  to  find  out  who  are  meant  by  the 
children  to  whom  the  promise  is  extended,  reference  ought  to  be 
had  to  Gen.  xvii.  17,  "I  will  be  a  God  unto  thee,  and  unto  thy 
seed  after  thee."  From  which  he  argues,  that  seed  and  children 
are  the  same  ;  and  therefore,  as  the  promise  God  made  to 
Abraham  was  equally  to  his  posterity,  so  it  must  be  understood 
here.  He  is  the  more  inclined  to  believe  this  to  be  the  meaning, 
because  it  was  in  consequence  of  the  promise  made  to  Abraham, 
that  he  and  his  seed  were  to  be  circumcised  ;  and  it  was  in 
consequence  of  this  promise  mentioned  by  Peter,  that  they  and 
their  children  should  be  baptized.  This  will  not  answer  his 
purpose  ;  for  it  will  contradict  a  former  part  of  his  book,  where 
he  divides  the  subjects  of  baptism  into  adults  and  infants  ;  the 
first,  he  says,  are  hot  to  be  baptized  without  faith  and  repent- 
ance, and  the  last  might  be  baptized  on  the  lakh  of  their  parents. 
This  will  be  overthrown,  because  Abraham  circumcised  Ishmael 
at  twelve  years  of  age  though  a  wicked  youth,  and  all  his  mrfe 


141 

household  servants.  It  is  well  known  that  none  of  Abraham's 
male  posterity  were  at  liberty  to  be  without  circumcision,  though 
they  should  be  grown  up  to  maturity  without  it,  and  though 
they  had  no  grace  (which  he  insists  adults  ought  to  have,  as  a 
pre-requisite  to  baptism)  ;  and  at  one  time,  Joshua  had  all  the 
males  circumcised  without  respect  to  age,  even  many  thousands 
who  had  been  brought  up  in  the  wilderness  without  it,  Josh.  v. 
5.  What  will  Mr.  E.  do  with  this  ?  He  tells  us,  that  the  converted 
Jews  and  gentiles,  were  to  administer  baptism  to  their  children 
by  the  same  rule,  and  to  the  same  extent,  that  Abraham  adminis- 
tered circumcision  to  his  children.  If  so,  then,  as  we  have 
before  proved,  all  his  male  posterity  were  to  be  circumcised, 
no  matter  whether  they  were  infants  or  adults,  whether  they  had 
faith  or  not,  whether  their  parents  were  believers  or  not.  Now, 
let  the  administration  of  baptism  here  mean  the  same  thing,  and 
then  the  believing  Jews  and  gentiles  were  to  baptize  their 
children,  no  matter  whether  they  were  infants  or  adults,  whether 
they  had,  or  had  not,  the  grace  of  God.  Was  it  then  in  conse- 
quence of  that  promise  Abraham  circumcised  ?  Is  it  for  this 
promise  we  are  to  baptize,  and  is  baptism  to  be  administered  in 
the  last  case,  as  extensively  as  circumcision  in  the  first  ?  Then 
Abraham  circumcised  a  -wicked  son,  and  all  his  servants,  and 
Joshua  afterward,  by  the  same  authority,  circumcised  a  whole 
nation  of  males.  What  think  you  now  of  your  rule  for  baptizing? 
Let  us  hear  no  more,  sir,  of  your  saying  adults  must  have  faith 
in  order  to  baptism,  but  infants  mav  be  baptized  without  it ; 
and,  sir,  see  that  you  baptize  all  the  servants  of  your  household 
as  well  as  the  servants  of  your  members.  Upon  your  principles, 
sir,  all  the  nation  may  censure  you  for  not  baptizing  them. 

From  the  above  it  is  manifest,  that  the  promise  made  to 
Abraham  was  not  the  one  intended  here,  nor  yet  are  we  to  go 
on  the  same  plan  in  baptizing  that  he  did  in  circumcising  ;  for, 
in  that  case,  baptism  ought  not  to  be  withheld  frGm  any  one  of 
a  believer's  posterity,  even  down  to  the  remotest  ages  of  time  ; 
and  it  would  be  sufficient  for  a  person  to  prove  his  right  to 
baptism  at  any  time,  that  some  of  his  ancestors  had  feared  God. 
As  to  his  having  no  religion  himself,  that  would  be  nothing ; 
for  he  would  only  have  to  make  it  appear  that  graceless  Jews 
had  been  circumcised  by  divine  command,  and  that  not  lor 
their  own  faith,  but  for  the  faith  of,  and  promise  made  to, 
Abraham. 

That  the  promise  alluded  to  could  not  mean  that  made  to 
Abraham,  is  evident  from  this  circumstance,  the  Jews  knew 
that  promise  to  be  theirs  already ;  and  tiien  Peter  would  be 
considered  as  telling  them  what  e\-ery  Jew  was  acquainted  with. 
But  the  promise  had  respect  to  .something  of  which  they  saw 

T 


1-12 

themselves  much  in  need,  and  without  which  they  could  not 
take  comfort.    The  promise  was  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  of 
which  he  had  first  spoken  in  verses  16  and  1 7.  "  But  this  is  that, 
which  was  spoken  by  the  prophet  Joel ;  and  it  shall  come  to  pass 
in  the  last  days,  (saith  God)  I  will  pour  out  of  my  Spirit  on  all 
flesh  :  and  your  sons  and  your  daughters  shall  prophecy  ;" — 
verse  18.  "  And  on  my  servants  and  on  my  handmaidens,  I 
will  pour  out,  in  those  days,  of  my  Spirit;  and  they  shall  pro- 
phecy." The  apostle  then  proceeds  to  shew,  that  Christ  was  the 
Messiah  foretold,  (and  proves  him  to  have  been  no  impostor) 
from  this  consideration,  that  the  Spirit,  spoken  of  above,  had 
been  poured  out  on  them  (the  apostles),  which  had  enabled 
them  to  speak  with  tongues,  "  which,"  says  he,  verse  33.  u  ye 
now  see  and  hear."     It  was  on  this  appeal  to  their  senses,  he 
founded  the  charge  afterward,  that  they  had  "  crucified  the 
Lord  Christ ;"  and  it  was  this  truth,  that  the  Holy  Ghost  set 
home  upon  them  which  begat  such  anguish  in  their  spirit,  that 
it  is  called  a  being  pricked  to  the  heart.     Now  it  was,  they 
expected  that  God  would  take  them  at  their  word,  "  Let  his 
blood  be  on  us  and  on  our  children;  and  therefore,  being  in  great 
distress,  they  inquire,  u  What  shall  we  do  V*  Then  Peter  advises 
them  to  c  repent;* — to  manifest  their  sorrow  for  having  crucified 
the  Redeemer  by  being  baptized  in  his  name  ;  and  adds  this 
gracious  "  promise"  that  they  should  receive  remission  of  sins, 
and  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost.     Here,  then,  is  the  promise 
intended  ;  that  on  repentance,  and  being  baptized,  they  should 
have  the  remission  of  sin  in  general,  and  of  the  crucifixion  of 
Christ  in  particular  ;  and  that  they  should  receive  the  gift  of 
that  same  Spirit,  which  was  visible  to  them  in  the  apostles.   This 
promise  oi  the  Spirit,  he  assures  them  was  made  to  their  penitent 
children  also,  and  to  the  Jews  u  afar  off,"  (in  every  nation)  that 
should  be  "  called  of  God"  as  likewise  to  the  called  gentiles. 
When  our  opponents  produce  this  text,  they  generally  stop 
short  at  the  words,  "  the  promise  is  to  you  and  your  children," 
and  it  is  with  the  greatest  reluctance  they  ever  produce  the  other 
part,  ■"  even  as  many  as  the  Lord  our  God  shall  call." 

It  is  as  plain  as  the  sun  in  its  meridian,  that  immediately 
after  mention  is  made  of  the  promise,  that  in  order  to  shew  that 
remission  of  sins,  and  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost  is  not  to  ever}' 
Tew,  nor  yet  to  every  gentile,  it  is  directly  added,  "  even  to  as 
many,"  whether  cf  Jew  or  gentile,  "  as  the  Lord  our  God  shall 
call."  Nor  could  the  remission  of  sins,  and  the  gift  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  he  intended  for  the  posterity  of  those  Jews  who  believed, 
and  of  the  gentiles  who  were  to  be  called  ;  because,  in  that  case, 
the  promise  has  not  been  verified  ;  for  it  is  manifest,  that  the 
children  of  believers  are  as  graceless  as  others.     Were  we  to. 


143 

grant  what  our  opponents  ask,  that  the  promise  made  to  Abrav 
ham,  "  I  will  be  a  God  to  thee  and  to  thy  seed,"  was  intended 
here  ;  still,  as  they  say  that  the  blessings  of  the  covenant  of 
grace  were  intended  in  that  promise,  and  not  merely  temporal 
things,  what  would  they  gain  by  it  ?  Will  any  of  our  Poedo- 
baptist  opponents  dare  to  say,  that  the  blessings  of  the  new  and 
everlasting  covenant,  are  the  property  of  the  children  of  all 
believers,  no  matter  what  are  their  lives  ?  Or  if  they  dare  not 
say  this,  and  yet  insist  that  this  promise  is  made  to  all  the  seed 
of  believers,  as  such,  must  they  not  in  this  charge  God  with  a 
breach  of  promise,  and  that  he  has  said  he  will  give  to  them, 
what  he  has  not  actually  given  ?  See  to  what  straits  our  oppo- 
nents are  reduced  :  they  must  either  insist  that  the  posteritv  of 
believers  are  all  saved — or  else,  that  God  has  broken  his  promise 
with  some  of  them — or,  that  he  never  made  it  to  all,  and  then 
their  scheme  is  gone — or  else  that  the  promise  to  Abraham  was 
not  to  be  a  God  to  them  in  a  saving  and  religious  sense  !  The 
best  of  all  will  be  for  them  to  give  up  these  God  dishonouring 
interpretations. 

I  return  to  what  the  author  of  the  Sermon  has  said  on  this 
text.  This  author  has  hardly  a  remark  that  is  original,  but 
seems  to  have  copied  all  he  says  from  Mr.  E. ;  and  why  he 
thought  proper  to  print  this  sermon,  when  the  original  itself  has 
been  circulated  in  this  city  so  generally,  is  not  for  me  to  sav : 
but  were  it  not,  that  a  neglect  of  him  might  be  improperly 
construed,  I  should  certainly  not  notice  the  production ;  for 
nothing  is  advanced  but  what  is  to  be  found  in  that  book.  He 
takes  up  some  time  to  prove,  that  what  is  called  "  the  promise 
by  way  of  distinction  and  eminenc)T,"  was  that  made  to  Abraham, 
"  I  will  be  thy  God;"  and  for  proof,  advances  Rom.  iv.  13. 
"  For  the  promise,  that  he  should  be  the  heir  of  the  world,  was 
not  to  Abraham  or  his  seed,  through  the  law,  but  through  the 
righteousness  of  faith."  Gal.  iii.  IT.  "  The  covenant  that  was 
confirmed  before  of  God  in  Christ,  the  law,  which  was  four 
hundred  and  thirty  years  after,  cannot  disannul,  that  it  should 
make  the  promise  of  none  effect."  Gal.  iv.  28.  "  We  as  Isaac 
are  the  children  of  the  promise."  I  shall  not  deny,  that  the 
promise  made  to  Abraham  was  an  eminent  one  ;  nor  yet  shall  I 
dispute  that  it  is  called  "  the  promise,"  by  way  of  eminence :  but 
does  the  gentleman  wish  to  insinuate  that  the  promise  of  the  s 
Holy  Ghost  is  not  also  a  great  promise,  and  that  it  is  not  likewise  / 
called  u  the  promise"  for  the  very  same  reason  ?  If  such  is  is 
intention,  and  he  wishes  by  this  means  to  make  us  believe  that 
the  apostle  meant  the  promise  made  to  Abraham,  and  not  tin? 
promise  of  the  Spirit,  he  will  find  himself  mistaken.  To  evince 
that  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Spirit  is  called  "  the  premise"  by  way 


144 

of  eminence,  and  is  therefore  the  meaning  of  that  text,  see  the 
context,  Acts  ii.  33.  "  And  having  received  of  the  Father  '  the 
promise''  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  he  hath  shed  forth  this,  which  ye 
now  see  and  hear."  Acts  ii  4.  u  Commanded  them  that  they 
should  not  depart  from  Jerusalem,  but  wait  for  4  the  promise*  of 
the  Father,  which,  saith  he,  ye  have  heard  of  me."  Luke  xxiv. 
49.  u  And,  behold,  I  send  '  the  promise'  of  my  Father  upon 
you  :  but  tarry  ye  in  the  city  of  Jerusalem,  until  ye  be  endued 
with  power  from  on  high."  The  author  is  of  opinion,  that  the 
promise  made  to  Abraham,  was  that  intended  in  the  text ;  and 
yet  it  is  manifest  there  is  not  one  word  in  it,  or  in  the  chapter, 
that  warrants  such  a  conclusion  ;  that  promise  not  having  been 
mentioned  once  in  the  context :  but  it  was  not  so  with  respect 
to  the  promise  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  for  that  is  spoken  of  in  this 
very  address,  and  it  occurs  in  the  4th,  17th,  33d  and  48th  verses 
of  this  chapter  j  Is  it  not  therefore  ridiculous,  to  travel  abroad 
an  quest  of  the  promise  to  Abraham,  to  press  it  into  the  service 
of  infant  baptism  ? 

Were  we  even  to  grant,  that  the  promise  made  to  Abraham 
was  that  intended  here,  still  this  will  not  help  the  cause  of 
infant  baptism  ;  because  the  apostle  declares  (and  that  in  the 
very  texts  this  gentleman  quotes)  that  these  promises  were  not 
made  to  Abraham's  natural  posterity,  but  to  his  spiritual  chil- 
dren only.  The  truth  is,  that  the  promise  made  to  him,  u  I  will 
be  a  God  to  thee  and  thy  seed,"  had  a  double  aspect.  As  a 
selected  nation,  taken  from  among  other  nations,  and  over 
■whom  God  intended  to  rule  as  a  temporal  prince,  he  was  in  that 
sense  a  God  to  him  and  all  his  posterity  :  but  when  the  promise 
is  taken  in  a  spiritual  sense^  then  it  is  not  made  to  his  natural 
posterity,  but  to  his  spiritual  children, 

Abraham  is  called  the  father  of  the  faithful,  Rom.  iv.  16. ; 
and  they  that  are  of  faith  are  said  to  be  his  children,  of  whatever 
nation,  Gal.  iii.  7.  This  title  is  given  to  him,  not  because  he 
is  the  author  of  their  faith  ;  but  as  an  honorary  title,  on  account 
of  the  greatness  of  his  own  faith,  m  which  he  is  the  example  of 
all  believers.  I  will  now  evince,  that  believers  only  are  Abra- 
hams children,  in  the  sense  of  the  apostle  ;  and  therefore,  this  . 
promise  made  to  Abraham  belongs  only  to  such,  and  not  to  his 
natural  seed,  nor  yet  to  the  natural  posterity  of  believers.  For 
it  must  be  evident  to  every  unprejudiced  mind,  that  if  the 
promises  of  the  covenant  of  grace  do  not  belong  unto  the  natural 
posterity  of  Abraham,  as  such,  to  whom  they  were  originally 
made ;  much  less  can  they  belong  unto  the  natural  posterity  of 
believers,  as  such.  What  is  it  to  be  a  God  to  a  person,  in  a 
spiritual  sense  ?  And  what  is  it  to  have  an  interest  in  the 
covenant  of  grace  ?  Docs  it  mean  no  more  than  to  admit  a 


145 

person  to  church  membership,  and  gospel  privileges  ?  Eveu 
our  opponents  believe,  that  when  any  person  stands  in  such  a 
relation  to  God,  as  the  term  implies  spiritually,  he  is  in  a  state 
of  favour  with  God — his  sins  are  remitted — his  person  justified 
— and,  having  a  spiritual  and  vital  union  with  Christ,  is  prepared 
for  the  heavenly  world  ;  that  all  things  work  for  his  good,  so 
that  he  shall  most  surely  arrive  at  a  state  of  gfory*  But  if  so, 
is  God  a  God  to  Abraham's  natural  posterity  thus,  and  likewise 
to  the  natural  posterity  of  believers  ?  How  preposterous,  and 
to  what  lengths  will  good  men  go  in  defence  of  a  weak  and 
unscriptural  practice  ! 

To  make  it  appear  that  believers,  and  only  such,  are  Abraham's 
children  in  the  sense  of  the  gospel,  and  that  only  unto  them  are 
the  promises  made,  see  these  texts  :  Rom.  ix.  6,  7.  "  For  they 
are  not  all  Israel,  which  are  of  Israel ;  neither  because  they  are 
the  seed  of  Abraham  are  they  all  children;"  verse  8.  "  They 
which  are  the  children  of  the  flesh,  these  are  not  the  children 
of  God  :  but  the  children  of  the  promise  are  counted  for  the 
seed."  Here,  it  is  remarkable  that  the  children  of  promise  are 
distinguished  from  the  children  of  the  flesh,  or  mere  natural 
birth,  and  these  called  children  of  promise  are  said  to  be  his 
seed.  Gal.  iii.  29.  "  If  ye  be  Christ's,  then  are  ye  Abraham's 
seed,  and  heirs  according  to  the  promise."  In  this  last  text, 
6uch  only  are  said  to  have  a  right  to  the  promise  made  to 
Abraham,  who  belong  to  Christ,  and  that  such  only  are  his  seed ; 
yet  the  apostle  says,  "  If  any  man  have  not  the  Spirit  of  Christ, 
he  is  none  of  his,"  Rom.  viii.  9.  But  have  all  the  children  of 
believers  the  Spirit  of  Christ  ?  This  promise  is  said  to  be  by 
faith,  or  only  to  belong  to  believers.  Rom.  iv.  16.  u  Therefore 
it  is  of  faith,  that  it  might  be  by  grace  ;  to  the  end  the  promise 
might  be  sure  to  all  the  seed:  not  to  that  only  which  is  of  the 
law,  but  to  that  also  which  is  of  the  faith  of  Abraham,  who  is 
the  father  of  us  all."  Now,  to  shew  who  they  are  of  whom 
Abraham  is  the  father,  and  consequently  who  are  his  seed,  and 
whose  this  promise  made  to  Abraham  is,  see  Gal.  iii.  7.  "  They 
which  are  of  faith,  the  same  are  the  children  of  Abraham." 

I  now  ask,  what  will  our  opponents  gain  were  we  to  grant  that 
the  promise  in  Acts  ii.  39.  was  the  promise  made  to  Abraham 
and  his  seed  ?  yet  these  seed  are  believers,  and  such  only;  still, 
the  sense  of  the  text  would  go  to  establish  believers  baptism, 
and  the  promise  would  be  confined  to  such  of  their  offspring  as 
were  the  spiritual  seed.  Our  author  lays  great  stress  on  the 
privileges  of  infants,  under  the  former  dispensation.  He  says, 
"  That  if  infants  were  not  admitted  to  membership  in  the  gospel 
church,  their  situation  was  better  under  that  dispensation  than 
now."    I  know  of  no  privileges  they  then  had  superior  to  those 


146 

tnjoyed  by  them  now,  unless  in  mere  temporal  things.  God 
promised  abundant  harvests — freedom  from  the  invasion  of 
enemies — .health  and  peace  in  their  possessions,  as  a  reward  for 
the  observance  of  ceremonies  :  but  temporal  blessings  are  not 
promised  to  the  christian  now ;  and  might  not  a  person  disposed 
to  cavil  say,  that  a  Jew  was  better  off  then,  than  a  christian  is 
now,  and  that  because  God  has  not  promised  them  fields  and 
vineyards,  and  national  protection  ?  Circumcision  gave  them 
no  grace  ;  and  though  it  gave  a  right  to  the  passover,  yet  that 
was  celebrated  as  a  national  deliverance,  not  a  spiritual  one : 
but  baptism  is  not  necessary  to  preserve  our  infants  from  national 
destruction,  neither  does  it  impart  spiritual  grace  ;  and  though 
it  is  a  pre-requisite  to  the  Lord's  supper,  still  our  opponents 
will  not  mourn  its  loss  on  that  account ;  for  they  do  not  plead 
for  it  with  a  view  of  bringing  their  infants  to  the  Lord's  table, 
but  absolutely  deny  it  to  them.  I  then  ask,  what  privilege  has 
a  baptized  infant  with  them,  more  than  one  not  baptized?  Have 
they  a  better  right  to  the  supper  ?  No,  say  they*  Have  they  a 
right  to  the  discipline  of  the  church  ?  Still  it  is,  No.  Have  they 
a  better  right  to  be  brought  to  meeting — to  hear  the  gospel  when 
capable — to  be  catechised— to  be  addressed  by  ministers- — to 
fee  prayed  for,  and  instructed  by  parents  ?  Still  the  answer  must 
be,  No.  To  train  up  children  in  the  nurture  of  the  Lord  .is  not 
a  ceremonial,  but  moral  obligation.  Well,  then,  what  is  all  this 
noise  made  about  ?  Is  it  such  a  privilege  to  have  a  little  water 
cast  ill  the  face,  without  the  subject  asking  it,  or  knowing  for 
what  it  is  done  ?  But,  if  I  am  not  mistaken,  the  advantages 
of  parental  instruction,  and  of  a  pure  gospel  ministry,  which 
children  unbaptized  may  have,  as  they  are  able  to  receive  them, 
are  superior,  yea,  infinitely  superior,  to  all  the  outward  and 
carnal  privileges  of  a  Jew,  whether  an  adult  or  infant. 

I  shall  dismiss  his  remarks  on  the  above  text,  with  a  few 
observations  on  this  paragraph,  page  44.  "  If  the  gift  of  the 
Holy  Ghost  was  promised  to  them,  it  was  to  their  children,  and 
they  were  to  be  considered  as  subjects  of  baptism  on  account  of 
the  promise  ;  not  because  the  gifts  of  the  Spirit  were  manifest 
In  them,  but  in  order  to  their  receiving  of  the  Holy  Ghost." 
This  is  partly  a  concession,  that  such  was  the  promise  in  the 
text ;  or  it  does,  at  least,  betray  the  fear  of  the  author,  that  he 
had  not  satisfied  the  reader,  that  the  promise  made  to  Abraham 
was  intended.  His  remark  is,  "  That  if  the  Holy  Ghost  was 
promised,  it  was  to  their  children."  True  :  but  not  to  all  of 
them,  and  only  to  such  as  are  Abraham's  spiritual  seed,  even 
such  as  the  Lord  should  call  by  his  grace.  Remember,  it  is  to 
M  as  manv  as  the  Lord  our  God  shall  call."  It  is  not  true,  that 
they  were  to  be  baptized  without  the  appearance  of  grace  :  that 


147 

appearance  they  had,  for  they  were  pricked  to  the  heart ;  and 
when  they  are  afterward  exhorted  to  repent,  we  are  not  to 
understand  it  of  evangelical  repentance,  for  that  they  had 
already,  and  had  evidenced  it :  but  to  repent  of  that  sin  of 
crucifying  Christ  in  particular,  and  to  receive  baptism  in  his 
name  immediately,  as  the  evidence  of  it.  But  he  avers,  the 
promise  was,  that  they  should  receive  the  Holy  Ghost  aft  a 
baptism,  which  was  an  evidence  they  then  had  not  the  Spirit  ,♦ 
and  he  takes  the  advantage  of  this,  to  insist  that  children  who 
cannot  believe  may  be  baptized.  To  say  nothing  how  this 
doctrine  would  overthrow  the  necessity  of  regeneration,  in 
erder  to  baptism,  in  an  adult  as  well  as  an  infant,  which  it  surelv 
would ;  I  shall  only  observe,  his  chief  mistake  is  here  :  that 
Peter  did  not  promise  the  regenerating  influences  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  after  baptism,  for  those  they  had  already  received,  being 
the  Lord's  called  ones ;  but  the  extrGorcFmarij  gifts  of  the  Spirit 
were  intended,  which  consisted  in  speaking  with  tongues,  &c. : 
and  were  distinct  from  regeneration. 

There  is  but  one  text  advanced  by  the  author  of  this  pamphlet, 
which  had  not  been  produced  by  Mr.  E,  It  is  1  Cor.  vii.  14. 
**  The  unbelieving  husband  is  sanctified  by  the  wife,  and  the 
unbelieving  wife  is  sanctified  by  the  husband  :  else  were  your 
children  unclean,  but  now  are  they  holy."  This  he  calls  au 
unanswerable  argument,  for  infant  church  membership.  Th-. 
gentleman  represents  that  the  Corinthians  had  been  concerned 
about  their  marriage  with  unbelievers,  and  that  this  concern 
arose  from  a  fear  that  their  children  would  be  unfit  for  member- 
ship ;  and  the  apostle,  to  satisfy  them  on  that  head,  had  declared 
that  their  children  were  holy,  and  so  fit  for  an  union  with  the 
church.  I  would  advise  a  careful  perusal  of  that  chapter,  and 
the  reader  will  be  convinced  there  is  not  even  one  //hit  about 
infant  church  membership  in  the  whole  of  it ;  but  the  whole  has 
respect  to  marriage,  as  to  its  lawfulness,  or  unlawfulness,  witl* 
an  unbeliever.  The  reference  had  to  Ezra,  commanding  the 
Jews  to  put  away  their  strange  wives,  and  also  all  the  children 
whom  they  had  by  them,  confirms  the  sense  we  give  of  this  text, 
and  as  fully  discountenances  that  of  our  opponents.  The  Jews 
being  forbidden  to  intermarry  with  females  of  other  nations,  all 
such  marriages  were  deemed  by  the  Israelites  null  and  void  ; 
and  the  children  begotten,  were  viewed  as  illegitimate.  Now, 
these  children  were  separated  from  the  congregation,  because 
they  were  considered  as  unlawful  ones..  The  command  to  put 
away  their  wives  was  on  account  that  their  marriage  with  such 
persons  was  considered  as  no  marriage. 

That  the  Corinthians  had  scruples  on  this  head,  and  were 
fearful  their  marriage  mi^ht  not  be  lawful  where  one  of  the 


148 

parties  was  an  unbeliever ;  and  that  this  very  instance  of  the 
Jews  putting  away  their  gentile  wives,  might  have  produced 
this  uneasiness,  I  will  not  deny  :  and  if  so,  then  it  was  on  this 
very  account  that  they  feared  they  were  living  in  continual 
fornication.  This  at  once  proves  our  views  of  the  text  to  be 
just;  and  that  the  question  was,  whether  or  not  they  were  really 
man  and  wife,  and  as  such  ought  to  live  together.  The  apostle's 
answer  goes  to  shew,  that  the  ceremonial  holiness  that  was 
required  of  the  Jew,  was  not  looked  for  in  the  gospel  church  ; 
and  though  it  was  a  fact,  that  the  marriage  of  a  Jew  with  a 
gentile  was,  under  that  dispensation,  no  marriage  at  all,  and 
consequently,  their  children  begotten  in  that  state  Were  illegiti- 
mate ;  yet  this  is  not  the  case  now,  because  those  Jewish 
ceremonies  are  now  at  an  end,  and  the  marriage  of  a  believer  with 
one  who  believed  not  was  lawful ;  and  that  the  consequences 
would  not  ensue  with  them  as  with  the  Jews,  their  children 
would  be  5*  holy"  or  lawful  children.  To  strengthen  this  sense 
of  the  text,  it  will  be  worthy  of  notice,  that  the  use  he  makes  of 
the  remark  about  their  children  is  to  shew,  that  if  such  scruples 
as  they  had  respecting  the  lawfulness  of  their  marriage  were 
just,  the  most  awful  consequence  would  ensue,  even  the  disgrace 
of  their  families  ;  and  he  urges  the  necessity  of  their  living 
together,  from  this  consideration,  that  a  departure  of  the  wife 
from  the  husband  would  be  at  once  declaring  their  children  base 
born  ;  and  leave  an  indelible  disgrace  upon  them.  In  all  this, 
he  addresses  their  feelings  as  parents,  and  urges  them  to  live 
together,  on  account  of  the  love  they  bore  their  children. 

If  what  this  author  says  is  true,  these  persons  were  not  so 
much  concerned  about  the  unlawfulness  of  their  connection,  as 
whether  their  children  might  become  members  of  the  church  ; 
whereas,  it  is  manifest  that  their  difficulty  was  whether  they 
ought  to  live  with  each  other  or  not.  An  attempt  is  made  to 
evade  the  force  of  our  argument  wherein  we  say,  "  that  the 
same  holiness  which  is  ascribed  to  the  children,  is  also  attributed 
to  the  unbelieving  parents."  The  evasion  is  this,  that  the  word 
"  holy"  in  scripture,  is  alwavs  used  to  signify  either  a  person  or 
thing,  devoted  and  dedicated  to  God,  or  to  one  as  being  con- 
formed to  the  will  and  moral  image  of  God,  in  temper  and 
practice."  In  the  first  sense  he  considers  the  text,  and  that 
when  the  apostle  says,  ■"  but  now  are  they  holy,"  he  means  they 
are,  or  ought  to  be,  dedicated  to  God.  But  he  has  not  told  you, 
that  the  word  "  sanctify"  has  the  same  meaning  as  the  word 
**  holy;"  as,  Aaron  and  his  sons  were  "  sanctified^  or  set  apart, 
Lev.  viii«  30.  as  Christ  is  said  to  be  **  sanctified,"  or  set  apart, 
Heb.  x.  29. ;  and  where  personal  holiness  of  believers  is  called 
sanctification,  3  Thes.  ii,  13,    Are  the  children  said  to  be  u  holy 


149 

or  sanctified  V*  So  also,  the  unbelieving  wife  is  said  to  be  sancti- 
fied, or  made  holy  :  so  also  the  unbelieving  husband  is  said  to  be 
sanctified,  or  devoted,  or  made  holy.  Where  then,  will  the  gen- 
tleman's interpretation  lead  him  ?  These  children  are  holy,  says 
he,  that  is,  devoted  to  God,  members  of  the  church.  We  reply, 
then  the  unbelieving  wife  or  husband  is  also  holy,  and  a  member  of 
the  church.  Oh  no.  But  why  not?  Because,  says  the  gentleman, 
"  the  children  only  are  said  to  be  holy,  but  the  husband  or  wife 
only  said  to  be  sanctified"  We  still  reply,  the  words  are  both 
alike  as  to  their  meaning,  (neither  can  our  opponents  deny  it). 
To  be  sanctified  is  to  be  holy,  or  to  be  holy,  is  to  be  sanctified; 
and,  as  the  same  words  are  applied  to  both,  they  must  mean  the 
same  thing. 

But  our  author  replies,  "  The  husband  is  sanctified,  or  made 
holy  to  the  wife,  and  in  like  manner  the  wife  to  the  husband,  not 
to  God  ;  but  the  children  are  sanctified  to  God."  This  word 
1  holy,'  he  insists  is  applied  to  none  but  those  that  are  of  the 
church,  and  therefore  shews  these  children  were  of  the  church, 
while  the  unbelieving  parent  was  not.  I  may  still  reply,  that  if 
what  he  says  is  true,  that  the  word  holy  is  never  applied  to  any 
persons  but  such  as  are  of  the  church  ;  so  neither  is  the  word 
sanctified  applied  to  any  but  the  same  persons ;  and  as  for  saying 
the  husband  is  made  holy  or  sanctified  to  the  wife,  I  may  with 
equal  appearance  of  truth  say,  the  children  are  made  holy,  or 
are  sanctified  to  their  parents.  But  where  does  he  find  it  in  the 
text,  that  the  husband  is  sanctified,  or  made  holy  to  his  wife, 
but  the  children  are  made  holy,  or  sanctified  to  God,  and  become 
members  of  the  church  ?  It  is  plain,  the  same  holiness  is  applied 
in  the  text  to  the  unbelieving  husband  or  wife,  as  is  applied  to 
their  children  ;  and  if  the  one  means  devotedness  to  God,  so 
does  the  other  ;  and  if  one  is  to  be  a  member  of  the  church,  so 
must  the  other.  So  that  our  opponents  must  either  admit  our 
sense  of  the  passage,  or  else  they  must  admit,  that  an  unbelieving 
husband,  or  wife,  is  entitled  to  membership  in  the  church  of  God^ 
because  married  to  a  believer. 

This  doctrine  is  monstrous  on  another  account :  it  makes 
grace  to  be  conveyed  in  natural  generation  ;  which  is  in  direct 
hostility  to  that  text,  John  i.  13.  "  Which  were  born,  not  of  blood, 
nor  of  the  will  of  the  flesh,  nor  of  the  will  of  man,  but  of  God  ;" 
and  to  John  iii.  6.  "  That  which  is  bora  of  the  flesh  is  flesh." 
It  also  represents  the  infants  of  unbelievers,  as  not  being  in  so 
safe  a  state  as  those  of  believers,  and  that  God  has  not  the  same 
regard  to  them  ;  and  if  anv  thing  looks  like  teaching  the  ever- 
lasting misery  of  infants,  this  does,  for  it  is  surely  making  the 
case  of  some  infants  much  better  than  that  of  others. — Ou*v*. 
opponents  urge  the  supposed  holiness  of  infants,  as  a  reason  why 


150 

they  shall  be  church  members  :  but  they  deny,  that  the  infants 
of  unbelievers  have  that  right,  while  they  at  the  same  time  assert 
the  right  of  the  infants  of  believers  thereunto.  Is  not  this  saying, 
that  the  infants  of  unbelievers  are  destitute  of  holiness,  while 
the  others  possess  it  ?  O  shame  !  shame  !  Had  a  Baptist  done 
thus,  his  name  would  have  rung  far  and  near. 

The  word  u sanctified"  as  found  in  this  text,  has  been  by 
Doctor  Gill,  interpreted  to  mean,  "  married"  or  "  espoused;" 
and  then  the  text  will  read  thus,  The  unbelieving  husband  is 
sanctified,  i.  e.  espoused  by  the  wife.  The  doctor's  meaning  is, 
that  it  would  be  as  though  the  apostle  had  said,  The  unbelieving 
husband  is  married,  or  espoused,  to  the  wife,  i.  e.  lawfully  so, 
in  the  sight  of  God,  although  both  do  not  possess  religion  ;  and 
therefore  your  children  are  holy,  or  legitimate.  To  which  our 
author  replies  with  a  smile,  thus  :  "  I  think  it  may  pass  for  one 
of  the  most  improbable,  unhandsome,  and  incredible  glosses  that 
we  shall  readily  meet  with  upon  any  text  whatever.  Neither 
the  Corinthians,  nor  any  one  else  doubted,  or  had  need  to  be 
told,  that  the  unbelieving  husband  had  been,  and  was  married 
to  his  wife,"  It  is  not  said,  that  the  apostle  meant  to  inform 
the  Corinthians  they  were  married :  but  his  intention  was,  to 
declare  their  marriage  lawful ;  so  that  the  question  was  not  as 
to  the  reality  of  their  marriage,  but  as  to  its  validity. 

To  shew  that  the  doctor  Was  right  when  he  said,  the  word 
sanctify  is  often  used  by  the  Jews  to  mean  "  espouse"  and  that 
the  gentleman  may  not  have  all  the  merriment  to  himself,  the 
reader  shall  see  what  the  doctor  has  said.  See  his  exposition 
on  1  Cor.  vii.  14.  "  The  very  act  of  marriage,  in  the  language 
of  the  Jews,  is  expressed  by  being  sanctified.  Instances  almost 
without  number  might  be  given  of  the  use  of  the  word"  (here  he 
shews,  that  the  sense  of  the  original  Hebrew  term  may  be  trans- 
lated to  espouse)  u  in  this  sense,  out  of  the  Misnic,Talmudic  and 
Kabinic  writings.  Take  the  following  one  out  of  a  thousand  that 
might  be  produced.  The  man  (here  the  word  occurs)  4  sanctifies? 
or  espouses  a  wife  by  himself,  or  by  his  messenger.  The  woman 
is  '  sanctified?  or  espoused  by  herself,  or  by  her  messenger. 
The  man  l  sanctifies?  or  espouses  his  daughter,  when  she  is  a 
young  woman,  by  himself,  or  by  his  messenger.  If  any  one 
says  to  a  woman,  be  thou  c  sanctified?  or  espoused  to  me  by  this 
date  (the  fruit  of  the  palm  tree),  or.  any  thing  of  the  value  of -a 
farthing*  she  is  '  sanctified?  or  espoused."  The  doctor  gives, 
in  one 'quotation  out  ol  the  Jewish  authors,  ten  instances,  where, 
the  word  marry,  or  espouse,  means  to  4  sanctify ,-'  and  how 
impertinent  is  it,  therefore,  in  the  author  of  this  milk  and  water 
Sermon,  to  raise  a  laugh  at  the  word  4  sanctify?  as  meaning  to 
espouse,  when  it  was  the  current  meaning  of  the  Jews.     But 


1*1 

perhaps  he  intended,  by  a  little  mirth,  to  cheat  the  reader  out  of 
the  sense  of  this  text,  for  the  text  truly  means  what  doctor  Gill 
affirms.  The  apostle,  when  he  says,  the  unbelieving  wife  is 
sanctified  by  the  believing  husband,  intended  to  convey  the  idea, 
that  their  espousing  or  marrying  one  another  was  lawful  in  the 
sight  of  God,  although  one  of  the  parties  were  not  a  believer  ; 
and  that  therefore  their  children  were  not  illegitimate,  as  the: 
Jews  esteemed  theirs  to  be  in  Ezra's  time ;  but  holy,  or  lawfully 
begotten.  I  shall  now  dismiss  this  author,  as  to  his  remarks  on 
the  subjects  of  baptism,  reserving  the  liberty  to  notice,  in  tVeir 
proper  place,  his  observations  on  the  practice  of  the  primitive 
churches. 

Mr.  E.  closes  his  arguments  in  favour  of  baptizing  infants., 
by  adducing  in  its  support  the  scripture  account  of  the  baptizing 
of  households ;  from  whence  he  concludes  that  there  must  have 
been  some  infants  therein.  The  instances  he  produces  are  those 
of  the  jailor,  Acts  xvi.  33. — of  Lydia,  Acts  xvi.  15.  and  of 
Stephanas,  1  Cor.  i.  16.  All  these  passages  he  does  not  consider 
separately  ;  but  huddles  them  together,  as  if  he  wished  to  have 
done  with  them  as  soon  as  possible.  On  Acts  xvi.  33,  u  And 
he  took  them  the  same  hour  of  the  night,  and  washed  their 
stripes  ;  and  was  baptized,  he  and  all  his,  straitway.  And  when 
he  had  brought  them  into  his  house,  he  set  meat  before  them, 
and  rejoiced,  believing  in  God  with  all  his  house."  He  will  not 
admit  that  the  family  of  the  jailor  rejoiced  with  him  ;  because 
he  knew,  to  acknowledge  this  would  be  giving  up  that  infants 
were  among  them  :  but  he  says,  the  jailor  himself  only  rejoiced, 
and  that  over  his  family;  which  he  calls,  rejoicing  domestically. 
That  the  whole  family  rejoiced,  will  scarcely  be  doubted  by  any 
one,  who  will  be  at  the  trouble  of  reading  the  narration ;  nor  need 
we  wonder,  that  a  family  rescued  thus  from  eternal  destruction, 
should  feel  such  joy,  as  to  be  thought  worthy  of  being  recorded 
in  holy  writ.  He  says,  "  But  whether  all  believed,  or  were 
capable  of  believing-,  is  not  said,  no  mention  being  made  of  any 
one's  faith  but  his  own."  A  more  glaring  contradiction  of  holy 
writ,  I  have  never  witnessed  !  What,  not  capable  of  believing, 
when,  in  verse  32,  it  is  said,  u  They  spake  unto  him  the  word  of. 
the  Lord,  and  to  a// that  were  in  his  house  ?"  And  when  in  verse 
34,  it  is  said,  all  his  house  believed,  as  well  as  himself?  HoMr, 
Mr.  E.,  could  you  so  far  forget  yourself  as  to  hazard  such  an 
assertion  ?  Can  you,  dare  you  deny,  that  a  person  capable  of 
hearing  a  preached  gospel,  is  capacitated  to  exercise  faith  in  a 
Redeemer  ?  How  in  the  name  of  integrity,  could  you  deliberately 
say,  there  was  nothing  mentioned  about  "  any  one^s  faith  but 
his  own"  when  the  express  declaration  is,  u  And  rejoiced. 
believing  in  God,  with  all  his  house  !" 


152 

Mr.  E.  thinks,  however,  that  the  baptizing  of  these  house- 
holds evinces,  that  the  practice  of  the  apostles  was,  when  they 
administered  the  ordinance  to  believing  adults,  in  like  manner 
to  administer  it  to  their  families.  His  words  are,  "  When 
Abraham  received  circumcision,  his  household  were  circumcised 
•with  him:  so  the  jailor,  when  he  was  baptized,  all  his  were 
baptized  likewise."  This,  instead  of  favouring,  entirely  ruins 
his  whole  scheme  ;  because,  his  object  is  to  make  the  conduct 
of  Abraham  in  circumcising  his  household,  the  example  for 
baptizing  ;  and  the  one  was  to  be  as  extensive  as  the  other.  If 
so,  then  Abraham  circumcised  his  wicked  son  Ishmael,  and  all 
the  male  servants  he  had;  nor  was  there,  as  we  read  of,  an  infant 
in  his  house.  What  becomes  now  of  Mr.  E.'s  assertion,  that 
iaith  and  repentance  are  required  of  adults  in  order  to  baptism  I 
Has  he  not  affirmed,  that  the  household  of  believers,  consisting 
of  infants  and  adults,  are  to  be  baptized  on  the  faith  of  their 
parents  ?  Thus,  at  one  blow,  he  has  levelled  all  he  advanced  in 
his  theses,  and  at  length  has  fully  declared  himself,  letting  the 
world  know,  that  he  wholly  disregards  the  requiring  of  faith 
and  repentance  in  any  instance  whatever — that  he  can  say  and 
unsay,  just  as  it  may  suit  his  purpose  ;  at  one  time  pretending 
great  reverence  for  apostolic  practice,  in  asking  faith  and  repent- 
ance in  adults,  and  then  directly  asserting  his  full  belief,  that 
christian  preachers  ought  to  administer  baptism  to  all  the  house- 
hold of  believers,  without  regarding  age,  as  Abraham  did  in 
circumcising.  The  reader  will  plainly  see,  that  no  dependance 
is  to  be  placed  on  what  this  author  says — that  he  has  no  fixed 
principles  ;  or,  if  he  has  any,  it  is  a  determination  to  overthrow 
believers'  baptism,  disregarding  the  means  by  which  this  is 
accomplished. 

How  Mr.E.  can  assert,  that  on  the  principles  of  the  Baptists, 
households  could  not  be  baptized,  is  to  me  a  mystery ;  especially 
as  it  is  well  known,  that  in  many  families  there  are  no  infants  ; 
and  as  there  are  instances  not  a  few  among  the  Baptists,  of  whole 
families  being  united  with  the  church  on  profession  of  their  faith. 
It  is  very  remarkable,  that  in  all  the  instances  recorded  of 
households  being  baptized,  the  Holy  Ghost  has  been  careful  to 
prevent  the  error  of  infant  baptism,  or  infant  church  member- 
ship, being  thereby  encouraged ;  and  this  has  been  done  by 
something  being  said  in  the  narrative,  to  prevent  the  idea  from 
fairly  obtaining,  that  infants  were  in  such  households.  Thus, 
in  the  case  of  the  jailor,  the  narrative  says  expressly,  that  the 
word  of  the  Lord  was  preached  to  him  and  all  that  were  in  his 
house,  and  that  before  baptism  was  administered  to  any  one  of 
them — that  he  believed,  and  all  his  house  :  from  whence  it  must 
readily  be  inferred,  that  infants  were  not  there :  for  they  cannot 


153 

hear  the  word  of  the  Lord,  nor  yet  believe  in  Christ.  So  also 
in  the  case  of  Lydia,  there  is  no  proof  she  was  a  married  woman, 
or  had  an  husband  ;  for  had  that  been  the  case,  no  one  can 
account  for  the  house  going  under  her  name,  and  not  her  hus- 
band's j  and  it  is  improbable  that  she  should  leave  the  city  of 
Thiftitira,  and  come  to  Philippi  in  the  character  of  a  female 
merchant^  a  seller  of  purple  ;  much  less,  if  she  had  young 
children  and  a  husband  also.  It  is  evident  her  household  were 
•servants,  or,  if  children, such,  as  had  arrived  to  years  of  maturity, 
and  that  because  in  verse  40,  it  is  said,  u  Paul  and  Silas  entered 
into  the  house  of  Lydia  ;  and,  when  they  had  seen  the  brethren, 
they  comforted  them"  Her  household  are  here  called 4  brethren,' 
are  said  to  have  been  comforted  ;  which  could  not  have  taken 
place  had  thev  been  infants.  The  household  of  Stephanas  is 
said  to  be  the  first  fruits  of  the  gospel  in  Achaia,  w  I  beseech 
you,  brethren,  (ye  know  the  house  of  Stephanas,  that  it  is  the 
"iirst  fruits  of  Achaia,  and  that  they  have  addicted  themselves  to 
the  ministry  of  the  saints),"  1  Cor.  xvi.  15.  If  there  had  been 
infants  in  that  household,  they  could  not  be  a  fruit  of  the  gospel; 
for  that  intends  conversion  to  God :  nor  yet  could  they  minister 
to  the  saints, — surely  it  will  not  be  said,  that  infants  could 
minister  to  the  apostles'  wants. 

I  would  now  ask  the  reader,  why  this  precision,  this  great 
care,  on  the  part  of  the  apostles  ?  Does  it  not  seem  as  if  the 
Holy  Ghost  foresaw  that  men  would,  during  the  reign  of  Anti- 
christ, introduce  into  the  church  of  God  improper  persons,  and 
that  they  would  take  advantage  of  every  thing  that  looked  like 
favouring  their  scheme ;  to  prevent  which,  he  placed  the  apostles 
on  their  guard,  that  in  all  their  narrations  of  facts,  nothing 
should  escape  them  which  would  in  the  least  degree  countenance 
infractions  of  the  law  of  God  ?  Upon  the  whole,  there  is  nothing 
in  the  word  of  God  that  countenances  the  baptism  of  infants  ; 
and  no  warrant  can  be  produced  for  it,  either  from  the  command 
of  the  Head  of  the  church,  or  the  examples  recorded  concerning 
Its  administration,  nor  yet  from  their  being  found  in  church 
relation. 

The  evident  result,  therefore,  is  in  direct  opposition  to  what 
Mr.  E.  has  asserted,  and  instead  of  infants  ever  having  had  a 
place  in  the  gospel  church,  the  reverse  is  the  case ;  so  that  there 
was  no  express  law  necessary  to  discountenance  that  which  was 
never  once  thought  of.  As  for  the  Jewish  commonwealth,  of 
which  thev  were  members,  it  was  an  institution  so  radically 
different  from  the  gospel  church,  that  there  is  no  inferring 
membership  in  the  one  instance,  from  the  other.  The  question 
he  asks,  '  how  infants  are  to  be  brought  into  the  church,  seeing 
thev  are  suitable  subjects,  whether  it  is  to  be  with  or  without 


154 

baptism  V  is  quite  useless  ;  and  that,  because  he  has  utterly    \ 
failed  in  making  it  appear  they  are  members,  or  that  Christ  has 
ordered  that  they  should  be.     We  boldly  aver,  they  are  not  to 
be  members  of  the  visible  church  of  Christ,  either  with,  or 
without,  baptism. 

There  is  but  one  argument,  properly  speaking,  produced  by 
our  opponents,  to  prove  the  right  of  infants  to  baptism  ;  and 
that  is,  the  membership  of  infants  in  the  Jewish  church.  If  we 
take  from  them  this  plea,  we  deprive  them  of  their  all,  and  their 
cause  is  left  without  support.  I  will  grant  them,  without  hesi- 
tation, all  they  ask,  yea  more  than  they  request ;  for,  whereas 
they  only  affirm  the  membership  of  males,  we  will  grant  females 
were  also  members  :  but  then,  after  all,  what  have  they  got  by 
it,  when  it  is  obvious  this  goes  not  to  prove  their  membership 
under  the  gospel  ?  If  I  shall  make  it  appear,  that  the  churches 
in  question  bear  not  the  smallest  resemblance  to  each  other — ■ 
that  duties  are  required  of  the  one,  which  were  not  of  the  other 
— and  that  the  duties  required  in  the  gospel  church  are  such  as 
are,  in  their  nature,  out  of  the  reach  of  infants  to  perform  for 
themselves,  or  others  to  do  for  them  ;  all  of  which  was  not 
the  case  in  the  Jewish  church  :  yea  more,  if  it  shall  appear  that 
infant  membership  was  the  great  defect  of  that  church,  and  was 
one  of  the  great  reasons  why  God  found 'fault  with  it,  Heb.  viii. 
8.  overturning  the  whole  system,  thereby  to  make  for  himself 
one  new  man,  Eph.  ii.  15. ;  will  it  not  then  be  seen,  that  the 
membership  of  infants  in  that  church,  is  so  far  from  entitling 
them  to  membership  in  this,  that  it  is  the  very  reason  why  they 
must  be  excluded  ? 

My  present  business  is  to  present  you  with  a  picture  of  both 
churches.  In  doing  which,  I  shall  from  scripture  text  exhibit 
their  materials— their  laws — their  rewards  and  punishments — 
their  officers — and,  last  of  all,  shew  there  are  many  things  said 
of  the  church,  that  will  by  no  means  agree  with  infants,  and  that 
infants  can  be  of  no  use  unto,  nor  yet  derive  any  advantage  from 
such  an  institution. 

Before  I  proceed  to  my  design,  some  things  must  be  premised, 
in  order  to  arrest  the  cavils  of  Edwards.  They  are  :  lc  He 
tries  to  intimidate  us  from  examining  the  Jewish  church,  by 
declaring  '  we  fall  on  the  very  church  of  God ^  'and  affects  some- 
times to  laugh  at  Mr.  Booth,  (a  man  whose  works  will  live, 
when  the  impudent  sophistry  of  Mr.  E.  is  forgotten),  and  at 
other  times  to  censure  him  most  illiberally,  for  having  pointed 
out  its  imperfections,  asserting  that  he  and  his  brethren  did  not 
scruple  to  degrade  the  church  of  Christ  to  answer  their  own  end. 
All  this  can  be  readily  seen  through :  but,  be  it  known  to  him,  we 
are  not  affrighted  by  mere  words  and  hard  names  j  and,  if  we 


155 

have  not  done  justice  in  our  descriptions  of  the  Jewish  church, 
why  do  not  our  opponents  overthrow  what  we  have  advanced, 
instead  of  denouncing  us:  But  has  Mr.  E.  even  attempted  to 
prove  any  of  Mr.  Booths  assertions  untrue  ?  He  certainly  has 
not.  He  foresaw,  that  in  maintaining  the  Jewish  church  state 
to  be  in  force,  he  would  be  hard  pressed  with  such  questions  as 
these  :  Whether  there  wrere  no  alteration,  ekher  in  its  members, 
or  its  institutions  ?  He  was  too  much  master  of  the  argument, 
not  to  perceive,  that  if  it  were  granted  that  any  alterations  zvere 
made  in  that  church,  as  to  its  members,  it  would  be  impossible 
to  maintain  his  ground  ;  and  therefore,  he  roundly  asserts  that 
the  gospel  church  is  the  old  Jewish  church  in  a  new  dress,  with 
the  addition  of  females,  founded  on  some  pretended  clause  in 
their  favour,  added  to  the  old  law.  When  some  alterations 
were  suggested  to  have  been  made,  he  declared,  that  the  church 
itself  was  not  altered,  but  only  some  of  her  dress.  If  so,  then 
what  the  Jewish  church  zvas,  such  must  the  gospel  church  be  : 
but  if,  on  examination,  we  find  in  the  New  Testament,  that 
what  is  said  of  the  gospel  church  is,  in  every  respect,  unlike  the 
Jewish  church,  Mr.  E.  must  needs  be  mistaken,  or  else,  what: 
is  worse,  the  inspired  writers  must  have  been. 

My  first  argument  is,  that  the  materials  of  the  Jewish  church 
were  different  from  those  of  the  gospel.  1 .  They  wTere  all  the 
posterity  of  one  man,  together  with  their  servants  bought  with 
money.  This  cannot  be  disputed  ;  for  if  circumcision  was  an 
initiating  ordinance,  and  male  servants  were  circumcised,  then, 
of  course,  they  were  members,  Gen.  xvii.  27.  2.  No  grace 
was  necessary,  in  either  young  or  aged  persons,  in  order  to 
■circumcision.  This  will  appear  from  the  command  being  general, 
to  circumcise  every  male  child,  Gen.  xvii.  10. :  and  surely  none 
will  attempt  to  assert,  that  all  the  male  posterity  of  Abraham 
were  renewed  persons  ?  That  no  grace  was  requisite,  appears 
from  the  circumcising  of  all  the  sons  of  Shechem,  Gen.  xxxiv. 
24. — from  the  circumcising  of  a  whole  army  of  adults  and 
infants,  without  distinction,  Josh  v.  7.— in  the  circumcising  of 
a  wicked  Ishmael,  Gen.  xvii.  27. — and,  in  that  no  direction  is 
any  where  given  to  require  religious  experience  prior  thereto, 
even  from  adults. 

In  direct  opposition  to  all  this,  the  gospel  church  was  formed 
out  of  no  one  family,  nor  of  a  few  families  ;  nor  yet  did  all  of  a 
family  belong,  because  one  had  embraced  the  gospel ;  much  less 
wras  it  confined  to  one  nation,  or  one  country.  Neither  are  the 
servants  of  a  family  members  of  the  gospel  church,  on  account 
their  master  embracing  religion,  nor  do  our  opponents  pretend 
to  such  a  thing;  much  less  did  they  in  the  church  of  Christ 
force  their  servants  to  be  baptized,  as  the  Jews  compelled  their 


156 

nought  servants  to  be  circumcised.  But  the  churches  of  Jesus 
Christ  were  made  up  of  persons  who  had  been  convened  under 
the  gospel ;  nor  do  we  ever  hear  of  any  other,  Acts  ii.  41.  "Then 
they  that  gladly  received  his  word  were  baptized  ;  and  the  saint-. 
day  there  were  added  unto  them  about  three  thousand  souls." 
These  were  "  added,"  not  to  the  Jewish  church  ;  for  to  that 
they  did  belong  before.  Such  as  were  its  members,  it  is  said, 
were  added  by  God,  and  were  in  a  state  of  salvation,  Acts  ii. 
47.  "  And  the  Lord  added  to  the  church  dailv  such  as  should 
be  saved."  The  gospel  churches  are  spoken  of  thus  :  4t  Beloved 
of  God,  called  to  be  saints,"  Rom.  i.  7.  "  Unto  the  church  of 
God  which  is  at  Corinth,  to  them  that  are  sanctified  in  Christ 
Jesus,  called  to  be  saints"  1  Cor.  i.  2.  "  Unto  the  church  of 
God  which  is  at  Corinth,  with  all  the  saints  which  are  in  all 
Achaia,"  2  Cor.  i.  1.  "  To  the  saints  which  are  at  Ephesus, 
and  to  the  faithful  in  Christ  Jesus,'*  Eph.  i.  1.  u  To  all  the 
saints  in  Christ  Jesus,  which  are  at  Philippi,"  Phil.  i.  1.  u  Unto 
the  church  of  the  Thessalonians,  which  is  in  God  the  Father,  and 
in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,"  1  Thes.  i.  1.  "  Unto  the  church  of 
the  Thessalonians,  in  God  our  Father,  and  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,"  2  Thes.  i.  1. 

This  contrast  shews  plainly,  that  the  two  are  as  wide  apart  as 
the  poles,  and  that  while  no  grace  was  required  to  be  a  member 
of  the  former,  but  only  a  willingness  to  be  circumcised  ;  on  the- 
Other  hand,  persons  however  pious,  who  were  not  of  that  nation, 
were  not  reckoned  to  belong  to  it,  nor  yet  were  they  commanded 
to  be  circumcised.  This  is  evident  in  the  case  of  Lot,  Abraham's 
brother.  Yet,  in  the  gospel  church,  no  inquiry  is  made  about 
family,  or  nation.  But  if  what  Mr.  E.  affirms  is  true,  that  the 
infants  of  believers  are  to  be  baptized,  because  Jewish  infants 
were  circumcised  ;  then,  from  what  I  have  just  proved,  it  will 
appear  that  their  bought  servants  are  also  to  be  baptized,  yea, 
forced  to  it;  and,  what  is  worst  of  all,  that  unbelieving  adults 
are  to  be  baptized,  because  such  were  circumcised.  Beside  all 
this,  a  man  that  was  illegitimate  was  not  to  belong  to  the  Jewish 
church,"  Deut.  xxiii.  2.  u  A  bastard  shall  not  enter  into  the 
congregation  of  the  Lord."  Would  any  man,  besides  Edwards, 
ever  have  dreamed  of  making  this  the  gospel  church  ?  What ! 
is  it  so,  that  a  bastard  is  not  to  belong  to  the  gospel  church,  nor 
yet  his  children  to  the  tenth  generation  ?  Neither  was  a  Moabite 
to  enter  in  under  a  less  time,  verse  3,  "  An  Ammonite  or  a 
Moabite  shall  not  enter  into  the  congregation  of  the  Lord  ;  even 
toth  ;r  tenth  generation."  Surely  it  will  never  be  pretended 
that  this  was  an  image  of  the  gospel  church,  and  that  very  church 
itself*  It  can  never  be  a  model  for  us  to  receive  members  by, 
when  a  mere  accidental  cirewnstance  of  parentage  or  cowitry* 


157 

and  that  without  respect  to  personal  vice,  is  a  prohibition  to 
membership.  But  what  is  worse,  is,  that  a  person  wounded  in 
body  was  not  to  enter  into  that  church  his  whole  life,  no  matter 
how  pious  he  might  be,  Deut.  xxiii.  1.  Will  it  be  pretended, 
that  deformity  of  body  is  now  to  be  a  bar ;  that  misfortune 
is  to  be  considered  as  crime,  and  made  the  foundation  of  still 
greater  privation?  Yet  such  must  be  the  christian  church,  if 
membership  in  the  cne,  is  to  govern  membership  in  the  other,. 
It  will  not  do  for  Mr.  E.  to  say  these  things  are  done  away ;  for 
If  membership  has  been  altered  at  all,  then  his  plea  for  infant 
membership  is  at  once  gone  :  and  beside,  he  told  us  the  "  many 
or  church"  was  not  "  altered,"  but  only  the  "  dress,"  Will  any 
of  our  opponents  affirm,  no  grace  was  required  to  membership 
in  the  gospel  church  ?  Or  dare  they  assert,  that  grace  was 
required  to  entitle  an  adult  Jew  to  circumcision,  or  yet  a  gentile 
proselyte?  If  these  things  they  will  not  pretend  to,  howr  can 
they  tell  us,  that  membership  in  the  one  instance  is  the  rule  in 
the  other  ? 

My  second  argument  is  from  the  organization  and  extent  of 
die  Jewish  church.  It  embraced  the  whole  nation  ;  the  most 
abandoned  were  as  much  members  of  it,  as  the  pious ;  the  nation 
was  not  considered  as  many  churches,  but  one  ;  and,  in  its 
original  organization,  authority,  in  civil  and  religious  affairs, 
Were  both  deposited  in  the  same  hands— priest  and  prince  were 
recognized  in  the  same  person — he  that  wore  the  mitre,  was 
also  a  general  in  the  field — -the  same  persons  that  sacrificed  for 
the  soul,  passed  sentence  of  death  on  the  body.  That  the  Jewish 
church  was  a  national  one,  who  will  pretend  to  deny?  Of  course, 
such  as  insist  on  it  being  still  in  force,  must  advocate  a  national 
church.  If  infant  sprinkling  is  admitted,  even  as  restrained  to 
the  offspring  of  believers,  the  gospel  church  must  be  national ;  for 
if  all  baptized  persons  are  in  the  church,  and  being  there  are 
reputed  believers,  then  their  offspring  will  be  entitled  to  baptism, 
on  the  same  pretended  right,  and  so  on  from  generation  to 
generation,  until  all  the  community  are  therein  ;  and  if  but 
one  infidel  should  be  converted,  his  posterity,  to  a  thousand 
generations,  would  fall  heirs  to  membership  on  his  account. 
However  preposterous  and  contrary  to  the  gospel  scheme  this 
is,  and  even  repugnant  to  the  feelings  of  Pcedobaptists  as  it  may 
be,  yet  it  is  the  very  plan  they  pursue  ;  for  they  first  sprinkle 
children  on  the  right  of  their  parents'  membership,  and  then 
their  offspring  on  the  same  ground,  and  so  proceed  on  without 
end  ;  and  all  are  members  in  some  sort.  Surely,  it  will  require 
no  argument  to  prove  this  is  not  the  plan  of  the  gospel  church. 

Every  abandoned  character  was  in  that  church :  such  as  were 
guilty  of  incest,  Gen,  xxxviii.  18.— murder.  Gen.  xxxiv  25  , 

X 


158 

nor  were  there  any  methods  of  separating  them,  unless  their 
crimes  came  under  the  view  of  the  judicial  law,  and  they  were 
punished  with  death :  but  can  any  man  affirm,  that  every  monster 
of  wickedness  is  to  be  in  the  gospel  church,  until  separated  by 
a  capital  punishment  by  the  civil  laws  r  Yet,  if  no  alteration  is 
made  in  the  old  Jewish  church,  such  must  be  the  case.  But,  as 
was  before  said,  if  any  former  members  are  cut  off,  away  goes 
tlie  plea  for  infant  membership  ;  for  it  rests  entirely  on  the  two 
churches  being  of  equal  extent.  The  Jewish  church  was  but 
one,  and  that  extended  over  the  whole  country  ;  nor  were  the 
synagogues  considered  as  distinct  churches  :  but  how  unlike  is 
this  to  the  gospel  church  ?  for  we  read  of  churches  in  Judea, 
Gal.  i.  22. — seven  churches  in  Asia,  Rev.  i.  11. — indifferent 
cities,  as  Corinth,  1  Cor.  i.  2. — Philippi,  1  Phil.  i.  1. — Ephesus, 
Eph.  i.  1. ;  and  a  church  is  spoken  of  as  being  in  a  house,  Rom. 
xvi.  15.  You,  reader,  are  left  to  judge  what  credit  is  due  to 
those  writers  who  affirm,  as  does  Mr.  E.,  that  both  churches 
are  the  same  :  I  ask  you,  is  there  the  smallest  resemblance  ? — 
While  we  see  priests  buried  in  war,  Josh.  vi.  4.  and  the  high 
priest  presiding  in  a  court  of  justice  and  pronouncing  sentence 
of  death,  John  xviii.  13.  14.  ;  does  this  look  like  the  church  at 
Jerusalem  I  Does  not  Christ  refuse  to  have  any  thing  to  do  in 
their  civil  concerns  ?  Luke  xii.  14.  Does  he  not  declare  his 
kingdom  is  not  of  this  world  ?  John  xviii.  36.  ;  and  does  he 
not  say,  he  came  not  to  destroy  men's  lives,  but  to  save  them  ? 
Luke  ix.  56.  But  can  our  adversaries  pretend,  that  civil  and 
religious  authority  are  deposited  in  the  hands  of  the  clergy,  and 
that  the  power  of  life  and  death  are  with  them  ?  If  not,  then 
the  churches  are  by  no  means  the  same  ;  for  such  power  the 
Jewish  priesthood  had. 

My  third  argument  is,  The  duties  of  members  of  the  Jewish 
church  do  not,  in  the  least,  resemble  those  in  the  cliristiaii 
church..  In  that  church,  an  outward  attention  to  sacrifices — 
tithes — rituals,  no  matter  as  to  the  motives  which  influenced,  or 
or  whether  the  heart  was  in  them  or  not,  were  all  that  the  law 
I  .quired  of  them  ;  and  never  do  we  hear  of  their  being  punished 
for  any  thing  but  an  outward  neglect.  But  the  duties  of  the 
members  of  a  gospel  church,  are  chiefly  those  of  the  heart.  To 
evince  this,  I  will  now  produce  positive  commands  to  members 
of  the  Jewish  church  ;  which,  if  they  are  considered  as  a 
religious  body,  are  incompatible  with  the  church  of  Christ,  and 
in  direct  hostility  to  his  commands,  yea,  to  the  whole  gospel 
scheme:  Exod.  xxi.  10.  u  If  he  take,  him  another  wife  ;  her 
food,  her  raiment,  and  her  duty  of  marriage  shall  not  be 
diminished  ;"  with  which  contrast  Luke  xvi.  18.  "  Whosoever 
putteth    away  his  wife,    and    marrieth  another,    committeth 


159 

adultery." — Exod.  xxi.  24.  "  Eye  for  eye,  tooth  for  tooth,  hand 
for  hand;"  contrasted  with  Rom.  xii.  19.  "  Dearly  beloved 
avenge  not  yourselves,"  and  1  Tiies.  v.  1 5.  u  See  that  none  render 
evil  for  evil '  unto  any  man." — Exod.  xxii.  10.  "  Six  years  thou 
shalt  sow  thy  land,  and  shalt  gather  in  the  fruits  thereof :  but 
the  seventh  year,  thou  shalt  let  it  rest  and  be  still  £*  contrasted 
with  2  Thes.  iii.  10.  k  If  any  will  not  work,  neither  shall  he 
eat.'  A  witch  was  to  be  put  to  death  by  that  church,  Exodus 
xxii.  IS.  He  that  did  not  keep  the  sabbath,  was  to  be  put  to 
death,  Exodus  xxxi.  14.  They  were  to  put  the  idolater  to 
death,  Deuter.  xvii.  5.  The  man  that  touched  dung,  was  by 
them  to  be  put  to  death,  Lev.  vii.  21.  They  were  to  put  to  death 
those  that  ate  the  blood  of  beasts,  Lev.  xvii.  10.  Ail  the 
congregation  were  to  stone  the  blasphemer,  Lev.  xxi  v.  14.  They 
were  to  stone  a  person  who  taught  idolatry,  Deut.  xiii.  9.  In 
some  cases  they  were  to  inflict  punishment  by  stripes,  Deut. 
xxv.  3. 

It  will  be  remembered,  that  this  putting  to  death  was  for  sins 
committed  either  against  the  ceremonial or  moral  law,  and  that 
the  congregation,  or  church,  were  to  be  the  executioners  :  but, 
brethren,  is  this  any  thing  like  the  church  of  Christ  ?  Has  he 
any  where  ordered  his  people  to  inflict  the  punishment  of  death, 
and  that  in  a  church  capacity  ?  Was  there  one  instance  of  any 
being  stoned  by  them,  even  for  blasphemy  ?  Yea,  did  not  the 
extent  of  the  powers  of  a  gospel  church  consist  in  excommuni- 
cation i  Is  it  not,  therefore,  plain  that  the  Jewish  church  was 
more  of  a  civil,  than  a  religious  institution  ;  and  is  it  not  evident, 
that  it  was  radically  different  from  the  gospel  church?  What 
figure  would  a  church  of  Jesus  Christ  make  in  dragging  an 
idolater  or  a  blasphemer  forth,  to  encompass  him  about,  and 
stone  him  with  stones  until  he  died :  yet,  brethren,  such  was 
the  church  which  Mr.  E.  calls  the  gospel  church.  But  this  is 
not  all  ;  for  the  parent  was  to  put  to  death  his  own  child,  Deut. 
xxi.  31.  :  and  is  this  a  church  of  Christ  ?  Or  rather,  is  it  not  a 
mere  commonwealth,  or  civil  institution  ? 

In  the  second  chapter  of  Numbers,  every  man  of  Israel  is 
commanded  to  learn  the  military  profession,  to  perforin  the 
duties  of  a  soldier:  but  where  are  such  precepts  to  the  church 
of  Christ  ?  Is  not  the  injunction,  '  as  much  as  in  you  lies,  live 
in  peace  with  all  men  V  Nothing  will  serve  better,  to  shew  how 
opposite  the  two  were,  than  to  consider  two  passages  which 
were  suitable  to  the  Jewish  church,  as  such,  but  never  could 
suit  them  as  a  religious  body  ;  and,  evident  it  is,  that  the  duties 
of  the  gospel  church  are  so  very  opposite,  the  one  could  never 
be  a  pattern  for  the  other.  "  Thou  shalt  not  seek  their  peace* 
nor  their  prosperity,  forever"  Deut.  xxiii*  6.     M  Therefore  it 


160 

diall  be,  when  the  Lord  thy  God  hath  given  liiee  rest  from  all 
thine  enemies  round  about,  in  the  land  which  the  Lord  thy  God 
giveth  thee  for  an  inheritance  to  possess  it,  that  thou  shalt  bio' 
out  the  remembrance  of  Amalekivom.  under  heaven  ;  thou  shall 
not  forget  it"  Deut.  xxv.  19.  In  both  these  texts  are  inculcated 
an  unforgiving  temper,  and  a  spirit  of  revenge.  Had  the  Jews 
been  a  religious  body,  as  the  church  of  Christ  now  is,  such 
precepts  never  would  have  been  given  :  but  as  our  opponents 
insist  on  it,  they  were  a  religious  body,  and  hold  them  up  as  an 
example  to  us,  how  evident  must  it  be,  to  a  reader  of  but  super- 
ficicial  knowledge,  they  cannot  be  such,  when  the  laws  of  Christ 
are  so  opposite,  as  we  shall  shew,  and  their  practice  so  different. 
To  manifest  how  opposite  the  duties  of  the  members  of  a  gospel 
church  are  to  those  of  the  Jewish,  take  the  following  texts :  "  Let 
us  do  good  unto  all  men,"  Gal.  vi.  10.  "  But  I  say  unto  you, 
love  your  enemies,  bless  them  that  curse  you,  do  good  unto  them 
that  hate  you,  and  pray  for  them  which  despiteficlly  use  you,  and 
persecute  you."  Indeed,  an  hundred  passages  such  as  these 
might  be  produced,  to  evince  how  widely  different  the  two 
institutions,  are,  and  that  what  was  obligatory  on  one,  could  by 
no  means  be  duty  in  the  other  j  yet,  is  it  not  strange  that  they 
should  be  considered  as  one  and  the  same  church  I 

The  only  expedient  which  our  opponents  use  to  extricate 
themselves  from  the  difficulty,  is  to  say,  these  were  mere  civil" 
institutions,  and  were  enjoined  on  them  not  as  a  church,  but 
merely  as  a  body  politic.  But  what  does  this  amount  to  ?  Is 
it  not  admitting  a  difference  between  them  and  the  christian 
church,  when  they  do  not  pretend  it  has  the  administration  of 
the  civil  law  in  its  hands,  and  do  they  not  acknowledge  the 
dissimilarity  ?  Indeed,  this  is  a  concession  that  goes  to  the 
ruin  of  their  cause,"  and  is  the  very  thing  we  have  been  contending 
for.  The  Jews  were  truly  a  civil  body;  in  this  light  they  are  to 
be  viewed  :  but  the  church  of  Christ  was  in  no  respect  like  them; 
so  that  while  adults  and  infants  were  of  necessity  a  part  of  that 
community,  it  cannot,  it  does  not  follow  they  are  to  be  members 
of  an  institution  purely  spiritual. 

My  fourth  argument  respects  the  discipline.  In  the  gospel 
church,  an  offended  member  was  in  the  first  instance  to  tell  the 
party  his  fault  by  himself ;  if  confession  was  made  he  was  bound 
to  forgive  :  if  no  confession  was  made,  he  was  to  take  with  him 
one  or  two  more  of  his  brethren — if  no  confession  still  was 
made,  he  was  to  give  the  matter  up  to  the  church,  to  judge 
between  them,  Matth.  xviii.  The  punishment  inflicted  by  a 
church  was  that  of  excluding  the  person  from  their  fellowship  ; 
but  in  no  instance  was  corporeal  punishment  inflicted.  How 
different  from  all  this  was  the  Jewish  church  !  Its  laws  took  n6 


161 

Notice  whatever  of  offences  of  a  spiritual  kind;  and  the  only 
offences  it  regarded  were  those  against  property,  f amity,  repu- 
tation, or  the  like.  Nor  were  any  directions  given  to  admonish-^ 
i;nd  forgive  ;  nor  yet  was  sorrow  for  an  offence,  in  any  instance, 
looked  upon  as  sufficient  :  but  the  command  was  to  obtain 
satisfaction  according  to  the  nature  of  the  offence,  either  in 
restitution,  stripes,  or  death.  In  the  church  of  Christ,  every 
christian  is  forbidden  to  go  to  laxv  with  each  other,  and  especially 
to  do  it  before  the  people  of  the  world ;  but  the  Jews  were  on 
-  vcrv  occasion  to  appear  before  the  judicial  authority.  From  the 
Jewish  church  there  was  no  excommunication,  nor  could  a  Jew 
be  separated  any  other  way  than  by  death  ;  and  although  the 
Pharisees  cast  the  blind  man  out  of  the  synagogue,  yet  it  was 
not  done  by  anv  lav/  of  Moses  (for  no  such  law  was  ever  given 
by  him),  but  by  one  of  their  own  traditions.  If  any  were  ever 
excommunicated,  it  was  the  leper,  who  was  ordered  to  be  shut 
out  of  the  camp  :  but  then  this  was  for  a  bodily  malady,  not  a 
moral  evil,  and  the  person  wTas  temporarily  excluded  for  mis- 
fortune, not  crime.  But  how  different  is  this  from  the  gospel 
church,  from  whom  every  wicked  person  is  to  be  excluded,  and 
that  not  on  account  of  natural  defect,  but  moral  offences.  If  our 
opponents  are  right  in  the  opinion,  that  they  are  one  and  the 
same  church,  or  that  the  christian  church,  as  to  members,  is  to 
be  governed  by  the  Jewish  ;  then  every  vile  person  must  be 
retained  in  our  communion.  c  An  heretic  reject,  after  the  first 
and  second  admonition,'  Tit.  iii,  10.  4  Put  from  among  you 
that  wicked  person,5  1  Cor.  v.  13.  Brethren,  judge  ye,  if  the 
two  churches  are  the  same,  when  murderers,  incestuous  persons, 
and  every  species  of  wicked  men  w ere  retained  in  one,  but  cast 
out  of  the  other,  Gen.  xxxiv.  25.  and  xxxviii.  18.  1  Cor.  v.  11. 
My  fifth  argument  is  taken  from  the  difference  of  officers. 
In  the  Jewish  church,  the  priesthood  were  to  be  of  the  posterity 
of  one  man.  All  the  sons  of  Aaron,  without  exception,  were 
of  the  priesthood,  and  it  would  have  been  death  for  any  other 
person  to  officiate  in  the  priests  office,  no  matter  what  his  piety -y 
or  his  abilities  were  ;  but  is  there  the  smallest  resemblance  ? 
Were  the  family  of  any  one  man,  or  any  set  of  men\  set  apart 
to  that  work  ?  And  would  it  be  a  crime  worthy  of  death,  in  any 
well  qualified  man  now  to  preach  the  gospel,  though  he  were 
not  descended  from  the  apostles  ?  But  what  is  still  more  striking, 
is,  that  a  man  might  minister  in  holy  things  there  without  gracey 
yea,  no  grace  was  required ot  such  to  fit  them  for  the  priesthood  ; 
therefore  we  see  the  sons  of  Eli,  who  committed  fornication 
even  in  the  temple,  1  Sam.  ii.  22  ;  nor  could  they  be  hindered 
from  the  work,  until  God  put  them  to  death.  On  the  other 
hand,  a  child  of  Aaron  might  not  minister  in  the  priest's  office, 


162 

if  he  were  even  a  pious  and  sensible  man,  provided  he  had  the* 
least  blemish  in  his  body,  Lev.  xxi.  18,  19.  "  It  he  is  a  blind,  or 
a  lame  man,  or  he  that  hath  a  flat  nose,  or  any  thing  superfluous, 
or  a  man  that  is  broken  footed,  or  handed."  How  different  is  all 
this  from  the  church  of  Christ,  where  no  bodily  blemish  is  a 
bar,  and  where  a  want  of  grace  and  ministerial  Qualifications, 
ave  the  only-  things  which  disqualify  for  that  work.  See  the 
cha  racter  of  a  gospel  minister  as  pourtrayed  by  the  apostle  Paul, 
an  then  I  ask,  whether  there  is  the  smallest  resemblance, 
1  Tim.  iii.  2,  3,  4 — -6.  "  A  bishop  then  must  be  blameless,  the 
husband  of  one  wife,  vigilant,  sober,  of  good  behaviour,  given 
to  hospitality,  apt  to  teach  ;  not  given  to  wine,  no  striker,  not 
greed\-  cf  filthy  lucre  ;  but  patient,  not  a  brawler,  not  covetous ; 
not  a  novice,"  See*  The  one  was  a  mere  carnal  ministry  ;  the 
other  was  purely  spiritual :  the  first  had  only  carnal  offices  to 
perform,  which  needed  no  grace,  and  therefore  such  were 
appointed,  but  the  other  has  spiritual  things,  and  such  only  to 
minister  in,  and  therefore  spiritual  persons  alone  are  qualified; 
and  all  this  shews  the  two  churches  were  by  no  means  alike. 

My  sixth  argument  is  derived  from  the  future  rewards  and 
punishments  held  out  in  one,  and  the  other  dispensations.  In 
the  whole  of  the  five  books  of  Moses,  not  one  word  (that  I 
recollect)  is  said  about  future  punishments,  nor  yet  of  future 
rewards,  unless  by  type  or  implication  ;  nor  is  there  an  instance 
of  threatening  the  sinner  with  future  damnation,  nor  yet  of 
promising  the  good  man  as  a  reward  for  his  virtue  eternal  joys : 
and  when  the  reward  of  piety  is  mentioned,  it  is,  perhaps,  only 
in  the  transfiguration  of  Enoch,  and  that  not  in  the  form  of 
promise.  In  the  books  of  the  prophets,  there  is  now  and  then 
mention  made  of  heaven  and  hell ;  but  it  is  very  rare.  When 
the  Jews  are  threatened  by  the  prophets  for  disobedience,  it  is 
seldom  with  future  damnation,  but  with  present  evils,  such  as 
the  invasion  of  enemies — destruction  by  the  sword — wild  beasts, 
dreadful  disease* — cutting  off  the  fruits  of  the  earth — and  car- 
rying of  them  captives  into  a  strange  land  :  And  when  promises 
were  made  to  them  for  obedience,  they  refer  to  defence  from 
enemies— abundance  of  the  fruits  of  the  earth- — their  living  at 
ease  in  the  quiet  possession  of  their  own  land.  I  would  advise 
a  careful  perusal  of  the  prophets,  where  the  reader  will  most 
assuredly  see,  that  in  every  address  to  the  Jews  as  a  body,  (or 
church)  they  principally  confine  themselves  to  temporal  rewards 
and  punishments  ;  and  this  is  true  with  scarce  an  instance  to 
the  reverse,  in  all  the  addresses  of  Moses  to  the  Jews  :  heaven 
and  hell,  are  I  believe  not  once  mentioned  to  them,  either  to 
intimidate  or  allure  them.  Nothing  will  set  this  in  a  clearer 
light  than  for  the  reader  to  turn  to  the  xxviiith  chapter  of 


163 

Duteronomy,  and  read  the  whole  chapter  ;  where  Moses  alto- 
gether dwells  upon,  and  sums  up  the  promises  and  threatening* 
made  to  Israel ;  and  where  it  will  be  seen  that  the  threatening^ 
and  rewards  are  wholly  of  a  temporal  nature.  I  could,  were 
my  limits  sufficient,  make  it  appear  by  particular  quotations 
from  the  prophets,  that  this  was  likewise  their  practice  ;  but  no 
doubt  the  reader  has  observed  the  same  things  himself.  It  u 
also  to  be  remarked,  that  when  the  civil  authority  was  sufficiently 
strong  to  punish  idolatry,  it  was  done  ;  the  punishment  of  the 
individuals  was  death,  and  God,  the  lawgiver,  was  satisfied,  and 
punished  not  the  nation  ;  but  when  the  nation  itself  became 
idolaters,  death  was  likewise  inflicted ;  but  it  was  done  by  raising 
up  the  nations  against  them. 

In  the  gospel  church,  no  temporal  good  was  to  be  the  reward 
of  virtue,  but  poverty  and  disgrace  were  the  lot  of  the  christian ; 
nor  was  this  confined  to  the  apostlic  age  ;  it  is  well  known,  that 
God  has  ,"  chosen  the  poor  of  this  world,  rich  in  faith,"  James 
ii.  J.  u  Not  many  mighty,  not  many  noble  are  called  ;  God 
has  chosen  the  foolish  things  of  this  world,  and  things  that  are 
despised,"  1  Cor.  i.  26— -28.  ■"  That  those  that  have  hope  in 
Christ,  only  in  this  life,  are  of  all  men  most  miserable,"  1  Cor. 
xv.  19.  In  this  world,  such  shall  have  tribulations,  and  we 
often  read  of  the  c  poor  saints' — ^-collections  for  the  churches  at 
Jerusalem,  &c.  It  is  likewise  manifest,  that  Christ  has  never 
promised  abundance  of  good  things  of  this  world  to  his  follow- 
ers ;  nor,  in  ail  the  threatening^  in  the  New  Testament  held  up 
against  sinners,  is  there  a  word  about  temporal  calamities  ;  and 
when  the  destruction  of  the  Jews  is  foretold,  it  is  on  the  ground 
of  their  national  polity  being  dissolved,  the  Messiah  having 
come,  and  there  being  now  no  more  use  for  them  in  that  capacity, 
and  likewise  to  establish  the  mission  of  Christ :  but  where  do 
the  apostles  threaten  the  gentiles  with  national  calamities,  if  they 
did  not  receive  the  gospel  ?  The  whole  ministry  of  the  apostles 
turned  on  spiritual  things,-— the  mystery  of  redemption — the 
work  of  the  Spirit — the  offices  and  characters  of  Christ — the 
order  of  the  church — the  spiritual  duties  of  the  christian — their 
future  happiness,  and  the  future  misery  of  the  wicked  ;  these 
were  all  their  theme.  The  rewards  of  the  Jewish  church  were 
of  an  outward  nature,  because  their  obedience  was  entirely 
outward  ;  but  the  rewards  of  the  christian  are  future,  because 
his  obedience  is  only  spiritual,  he  having  no  outward  burden- 
some duties  to  perform.  To  you  then,  reader,  I  appeal ;  is  not 
Mr.  E.  "  wide  of  the  mark"  when  lie  affirms,  that  the  old 
Jewish  church  is  the  same  as  that  of  the  gospel  ?  And  has  he 
not  utterly  failed,  in  proving  their  church  state  in  continuance  : 


164 

No  spiritual  qualifications  are  either  necessary  or  required 
of  a  Tew,  to  fit  him  to  be  a  member  of  that  church.  That  they 
were  not  required,  is  evident  in  this,  that  they  were  members 
by  birth,  or,  in  case  of  proselytes,  if  made  so  by  circumcision. 
it  was  done  in  infancy  before  conversion,  or  if  done  in  mature 
age,  no  religious  experience  was  required,  and  thousands  of 
wicked  persons  were  circumcised.  A  good  Jew,  was  one  that 
kept  the  outtvard  letter  of  the  law  ;  this  he  might  do  without 
being  a  good  man  spiritually  ;  this  was  a  righteousness  suffi- 
cient to  gain  the  approbation  of  God  as  a  temporal  prince,  but 
not  as  an  eternal  Judge.  In  fact,  the  Jew  might  possess  this 
outward  ceremonial  righteousness,  continue  in  it  to  the  day  of 
his  death,  and  yet  be  lost  at  last.  But  those  righteous  in  a 
gospel  sense,  are  so  in  heart,  not  in  ceremonial  obedience  ;  and 
the  qualifications  for  Christ's  spiritual  kingdom  are  such,  that  - 
those  who  possess  them  will  eventually  be  saved. 

I  close  this  argument  by  observing,  that  a  Jew,  who  was  , 
deemed  righteous  in  his  own  church,  and  was  so  in  a  ceremonial 
sense,  if  translated  into  the  gospel  church,  could  not  perform 
the  duties  there;  because,  in  the  first  only  bodily  service  was 
required,  and  this  he  could  perform  without  grace:  but  in 
the  second,  faith,  hope,  love,  patience,  humility,  and  a  number 
of  graces  are  required,  all  which  he  has  not ;  or  if  he  had 
them,  they  were  not  necessary  to  the  station  which  he  held  as  a 
member  of  that  community  ;  for  other  than  a  member  he  could 
not  be,  unless  he  ceased  to  exist,  or  never  had  existed,  or  at 
least  had  not  been  of  Abraham's  posterity :  but  a  man  might  be 
a  descendant  of  Abraham,  or  any  believer,  and  yet  not  belong 
to  the  church  of  Christ.  But  if  an  adult  member  of  the  Jewish 
church,  as  such,  could  not  perform  the  duties  of  a  member  of 
the  gospel  church;  is  it  not  preposterous  to  affirm,  that  a  Jewish 
infant  could  perform  such  duties,  who  even  wanted  the  outward 
advantages  of  the  other?  Besides,  as  the  duties  required  of  an 
adult  Jew,  were  of  an  outward  nature,  all  of  which  he  could 
perform  without  grace,  and  allowing  the  same  duties  were 
required  of  his  infant,  still  this  could  not  be  done  for  him  by 
another :  but  we  cannot  infertile  membership  of  infants  in  the 
gospel  church  from  hence  ;  because,  as  before  observed,  if  an 
adult  member  of  that  church,  as  such,  could  not  be  a  member 
of  the  gospel  church,  and  his  membership  could  not  be  argued 
from  his  standing  there  ;  much  less  can  the  membership  of  an 
infant  be  argued,  who  does  not  stand  on  as  good  ground  as  the 
adult  Jew  ;  and  that  especially  as  no  one  can  for  that  infan:: 
perform  the  duties  required  in  the  gospel  church,  whi^h  could 
be,  and  was  done,  in  the  Jewish. 


165 


These  arguments  may  be  summed  up  and  contrasted,  thus  t 


1.  The  Jewish  church  was 
n  national  one. 

2.  That  was  one  man's  pos- 
terity, and  all  of  one  man^s  pos- 
terity, together  with  his  bought 
servants. 

3.  In  that  church,  nothing 
but  ceremonial  holiness  was 
required. 

4.  In  that,  they  could  be,  and 
were  members,  without  grace. 


5.  Their  rewards  were  tem- 
poral, and  so  were  their  punish- 
ments. 

6.  In  that,  a  person  was  to 
be  cut  off  who  was  not  circum- 
cised. 

7.  In  that,  temporal  death 
was  inflicted  for  offences. 

8.  In  that,  their  children 
could  perform  duty  by  proxy. 


9.  That  church  increased  by 
natural  generation. 


1.  The  gospel  church  never 
embraced  any  whole  nation. 

2.  This,  not  of  one  family, 
much  less  all  of  a  family ;  nor 
are  servants  to  be  baptized  and 
received  members,  as  such. 

3.  In  this,  outward  perform- 
ance is  nothing  without  holy 
dispositions. 

4.  In  this,  they  must  have 
grace,  for  they  could  not  per- 
form requisite  duties  without 
it. 

5.  In  this,  rewards  and  pu- 
nishments are  only  in  futurity, 
and  spiritual. 

6.  In  this,  no  person  will  be 
damned  for  not  submitting  to 
baptism. 

7.  In  this,  quite  the  reverseo 

8*  In  this,  it  is  utterly  im- 
possible, because  a  christian 
parent  can  do  no  more  than  his 
own  duty. 

9.  This,  only  by  the  power 
of  the  Holy  Spirit  attending  his 
word. 

10.  In  this,  Christ's  king- 
dom and  that  of  the  world,  are 
two  different  things  ;  nor  did 
the  apostles  pretend  to  civil 
authority. 

11.  In  this,  directions  are 
given  to  exclude  them. 


10.  In  that,  their  religion  in- 
corporated itself  with  their  go- 
vernment;  and  civil,  religious 
and  political  powers  lodged  in 
the  same  hands. 

1 1 .  In  that  there  was  no  such 
thing  as  to  excommunicate  an 
unworthy  member. 

Having  thus  demonstrated  the  falsity  of  Mr.  E.'s  assertions, 
that  the  Jewish  church  state  remains,  and  having  shewn  that 
the  two  churches  are  radically  different,  and  that  infants  can  by 
no  means  be  members  of  the  gospel  church  as  they  were  of  the 
Jewish  ;  I  shall  now  shew,  that  some  things  are  said  of  the 
gospel  church  that  will  not  agree  with  infants.  The  church  is 
called  w  the  pillar  and  ground  of  the  truth,"  Tim.  iii.  15.  :  but 
can  it  be  said  of  infants,  that  they  are  the  support  and  defence 
of  the  gospel?  The  church  is  said  to  be  subject  to  Christ,  sis  r. 

Y 


16b 

woman  ought  to  he  to  her  husband,  Eph.  v.  22. :  but  are  infants, 
indeed,  subject  to  Christ  ?  Paul  persecuted  the  church,  says  the 
sacred  text,  Phil.  iii.  6.  :  but  did  he  act  so  unmanly  as  to 
persecute  infants  I  It  is  said  that  Saul  made  havoc  of  the  church, 
Acts  viii.  3. :  can  it  be  thought  he  put  young  children  to  death  ? 
Certainly  not.  It  is  said,  that  it  pleased  the  whole  church  (not 
part  of  them)  to  send  chosen  men  of  their  own  company,  to 
Antioch,  Acts  xv.  22. :  this  cannot  agree  with  infants  ;  for  it 
was  impossible  that  they  should  send  messengers.  Such  as 
prophecy,  are  said  to  edify  the  church,  1  Cor.  xiv.  15. :  but  if 
infants  were  members,  this  could  only  be  true  of  a  part  of  them. 
The  church  were  not  to  be  charged  with  the  support  of  certain 
widows,  1  Tim.  v.  16.:  but  would  it  not  be  nonsense  for  the 
apostles  to  direct  babes  not  to  support  the  widows  ?  The  apostle 
John  says,  u  I  wrote  to  thechurch,"  3  John  2. :  but  it  is  ridicu- 
lous so  to  talk,  if  infants  were  in  it,  especially  if  the  children  of 
believers  were  such:;  they  would  constitute  the  majority.  In 
Acts  ix.  31.  "  Then  had  the  churches  rest,  throughout  all  Judea 
and  Galilee  and  Samaria,  and  were. edified  ;  and  walked  in  the 
fear  of  the  Lord,  and.  in  the  comfort  of  the  Holy  Ghost."  Can 
jt  with  consistency  be  said  of  little  sucking  infants,  that  they 
were  "  edified,1'*  u  walked  in  the  fear  of  the  Lord"  and"  were 
comforted  of  the  Holy  Ghost  fn  Yet  such  inconsistencies  are 
with  our  opponents.  It  is  said,  that  when  Ananias  and  Sapphira 
his  wife,  had  been  slain  by  the  Lord,  "  great  fear  came  upon  all 
(not  a  part  only)  the  church,"  Acts  v.  11.:  but  were  babes 
afraid  ?  Directions  are  given  to  aggrieved  members  of  the  church 
how  to  act,  and  their  instructions  run  thus  :  "  And  if  he  shall 
neglect  to  hear  them,  tell  it  unto  the  church :  but  if  he  shall 
neglect  to  hear  the  church,"  &c.  Matth.  .xviii.  17.  But  how  is 
he  to  tell  his  case  to  infants?  and  how  can  infants  speak  to  tht, 
offending  person  ?     ' 

The^e,  and  numberless  other  texts  that  might  readily  be 
adduced,  afford  dignified  and  obvious  proof  that  infants  were 
n£)t  in  the  apostolic  churches  ;  nor  can  our  opponents,  with  all 
their  subtle  logic,  evade  the  force  of  them.  But  all  the  exhorta- 
tions and  warnings  addressed  to  the  members  of  churches,  prove 
-he  same  thing,  all  of  which  would  be  utterly  inconsistent  wTere 
intants  in  membership  ;  besides  which,  it  is  remarkable,  that  no 
directions  are  given  to  the  church  with  respect  to  such  infants  : 
•a  negleec  this,  that  never  would  have  existed,  if  they  were 
members,  and  which  cannot  lie  said  as  it  relates  to  the  Jewish 
,  tlun'ch.  Doe*  it  appear  consistent,  that  exhortations  should  be 
•uidressed  to  the  church  by  name,  and  which  do,  in  every  instance, 
imply  the  parties  having  grace  and  the  exercise  of  their  under- 
standing and  yet  no  directions  given  to  the  church  respecting 


167 

infant  members,  if  they  were  so ;  but  all  the  exhortations  whkfo- 
eoncern  them  are  addressed  to  their  parents  ?  No  duties  are 
pointed  out  for  them  to  perform,  or  others  to  perform  for  them  ;- 
nor  yet  is  there  any  church  privilege  assigned  to  them,  nor  could 
they  enjoy  any;  nor  can  our  Lord's*  act  of  blessing  some  infants, 
establish  their  right  to  baptism,  or  church  membership,  for  we 
have  no  information  of  either  taking,  place  ;  nor  yet  did  he 
leave  any  command  to  his  disciples  to  follow  his  example  in  this 
respect. 

Such  exhortations  and  cautions  as  these  following^  are  in  all 
the  epistles  directed  to  the  church  in  general,  without  any 
specification  of  age  or  sex :  a  Take  heed,  brethren,  lest  there 
should  be  in  any  of  vou  an  evil  heart  of  unbelief,"  Heb.  iii.  12.. 
"  Bear  ye  one  another's  burdens,"  Gal.  vi.  2.  "  If  a  brother 
he  overtaken  in  a  fault,  let  such  as  are  spiritual  restore  him," 
Gal.  vi.  1.  "  Not  forsaking  the  assembling  of  yourselves  toge- 
ther," Heb.  x.  25.  "  Examine  yourselves  whether  ye  be  in  the 
faith — Let  a  man  examine  himself  and  so  let  him  eat  of  that 
breads"  1  Cor.  xi.  "  Ye  are  all  the  children  of  God  by  faith  in 
Christ  Jesus,"  GaL  iii.  26.  "  Received  ye  the  Spirit  by  the  works 
of  the  law,  or  by  the  hearing  of  faith  ln  Gal.  iii.  2.  Such 
quotations  would  be  endless  ;  I  must  therefore  leave  it  to  the 
reader  to  judge  for  himself,  how  very  absurd  such  addresses 
would  be  if  made  to  infants  ;  and  confident  I  am,  that  a  man 
not  blinded  by  prejudice,  never  will  maintain  the  membership 
of  infants. 

It  has  been  asked  by  PoedobaptistSj  why  make  so  much  ado 
about  baptism  ?  It  is,  say  they,  but  a  non-essential  at  last,  and 
even  if  we  are  wrong,  it  is  not  a  matter  of  much  importance,  nor 
shall  we  be  asked  in  the  day  of  judgment  whether  we  were 
Baptists  or  Poedobaptists.  In  answer  to  this  I  shall  observe,  that 
it  is  hard  for  our  opponents  to  know  What  questions  will  be  asked 
them  on  that  head  hereafter  :  but  Christ  says, '  He  that  breaketh 
one  of  the  least  of  these  commandments,  and  teacheth  men  so, 
shall  be  called  the  least  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven,'  Matth.  v.  19. 
Certainly  this  text  does  not  look  as  if  the  practice  were  harm- 
less. I  have  often  wondered  that  any  christians  would  urge  as 
a  reason  for  neglect,  that  baptism  is  not  a  ^saving"  ordinance  ; 
there  is  so  much  meanness  in  it,  and  it  certainly  conveys  the 
idea  that  they  are  determined  to  have  no  more  religion  than  is 
sufficient  to  keep  them  out  of  hell;  and  if  they  can  but  get  to 
heaven,  God's  glory  is  nothing  to  themy  yea,  that  they  care  not 
whether  he  is  pleased  or  displeased*  I  know  that  there  are 
thousands  of  godly  Pcedobaptists  who  would  tremble  at  such 
inferences  :  but  I  ask,  do  they  not  arise  out  of  the  excuses  that 
are  made  ?  But  infant  baptism  is  so  far  from  being  a  small  things 


168 

it  is  one  of  the  greatest  of  evils,  and  has  been  the  fruitful  source 
of  most  of  the  calamities  that  have  overtaken  the  christian 
church  :  it  has  been  the  inlet  to  innumerable  other  evils,  and 
never  will  the  church  of  Christ  be  purged  and  appeal-  in  hci 
primitive  simplicity  and  beauty,  until  this  most  pernicious 
practice  is  discontinued.  Baptism  is  called  the  door  into  the 
church,  by  our  opponents  :  does  it  not  then  assume  the  greatest 
importance,  and  does  it  not  become  us  to  take  care  that  the  door 
is  such  as  will  not  eventually  destroy  the  church  itself  I  All 
pious  men  know,  that  real  religion  consists  in  a  work  of  grace 
in  the  soul — a  new  and  spiritual  birth — and  that  in  this  work, 
there  is  effected  a  change  or  views,  of  affections,  and  of  the  pur- 
suits of  those  who  are  the  partakers  of  it :  so  that  such  persons 
are  entirely  opposite  in  their  tempers  and  dispositions,  to  the  rest 
of  mankind  ;  nor  can  they  have  any  real  fellowship  with  them  in 
worldly  things,  and  none  at  all  in  spiritual  concerns,  for  there 
is  not  the  least  agreement  of  sentiment  here. 

I  now  ask,  what  was  a  church  state  set  up  for  ?  Was  it  not 
that  real  religious  persons  might  be  associated  together  in 
brotherly  love  j  and  by  enjoying  each  other's  conversation  and 
fraternal  assistance,  grow  up  in  their  holy  religion,  and  so  aid 
each  other  in  seeking  everlasting  life  ?  And  did  not  Christ  in 
establishing  the  gospel  church,  intend  they  should  hold  up  to 
the  view  of  sinful  men  the  excellency  of  the  christian  religion,, 
and  thereby  practically  enforce  in  their  view,  the  necessity  of 
real  piety  in  order  to  their  future  happiness?  But  infant  sprink- 
ling has  corrupted  the  church  of  God — has  made  the  fountain 
turbid — has  made  it  a  mere  worldly  sanctuary — has  defeated 
the  ends  Christ  proposed  in  the  organization  of  this  religion* 
institution ;  and  the  children  of  God  have  to  seek  in  retirement 
that  comfort  they  cannot  have  in  a  worldly  church  ;  while  the 
wicked  are  hardened  in  their  infidel  principles,  by  the  conduct 
of  such  professors. 

My  brethren  in  the  ministry,  who  are  in  the  practice  of  infant 
sprinkling,  and  who  have  felt  the  power  of  religion  in  your  heart, 
(lor  to  carnal  clergy  this  address  will  be  tasteless)  ;  have  you 
surveyed  all  thexonsequences  of  such  a  practice,  and  will  you 
bear  with  me  whiter  discharge  a  solemn  duty  which  I  owe  to 
God  and  to  you,  even  that  of  developing  the  evils  attendant 
upon  it  ?  You  well  know,  that  in  christian  countries  (so  called) 
near  nine-tenths  of  the  people  have  received  what  is  termed 
baptism,  in  infancy,  and  you  have  told  us  that  baptism  introduces 
into  the  church.  Now,  brethren,  look  at  the  state  of  society  j 
what  have  you  done,  have  you  not  assisted  in  crouding  into  the 
church  of  Christ  the  children  of  satan  ?  Do  you  not,  by  these 
means,  put  the  government  of  the  church  into  the  hands  of 


169 

wicked  men,  they  being  by  far  the  majority?  Infant  sprinkling 
is  the  mean  by  satan  used  for  preventing  a  religious  experience 
being  given  in,  in  order  to  admission  into  the  church  :  hence  a 
religious  experience  ceases  to  be  necessary  to  church  member- 
ship, and  what  is  the  consequence  ?  Is  it  not,  that  the  great 
majority  of  such  institutions  become  In  a  short  time  graceless 
persons  ?  And  these  churches,  what  are  they  to  do  ?  are  they 
not  to  select  their  officers,  such  as  ministers  and  deacons  ?  But 
what  selections  are  wicked  men  likely  to  make  ?  Will  they  choose 
pious  persons  to  fill  such  stations,  or  are  they  not  generally 
disposed  to  sit  under  a  clergy  that  will  favour  their  vices  ;  and 
to  choose  deacons  and  elders,  who  will  wrink  at  sin  ? 

If  it  should  be  asked,  why  are  many  churches  so  corrupt,  that 
their  members  generally  live  in  all  the  fashions  and  gaiety  of  the 
age — attend  the  theatre — arc  found  at  assemblies  and  sinful  par- 
ties— are  profane  and  loose  in  their  conversation — neither  as- 
semble for  social  worship,  nor  admit  of  religious  conversation 
among  them ;  the  answer  will  be,  infant  sprinkling  is  the  cause  of 
all  this — it  has  made  them  members  of  the  church.  Should  it 
be  asked,  why  are  many  of  the  clergy  void  of  religion,  and  how 
came  they  into  the  sacred  trust,  and  what  led  to  their  being  se- 
lected as  pastors?  the  answer  is  still  the  same — infant  sprinkling 
is  the  cause  ?  Should  it  be  asked,  why  mere  moral  lectures,  ele- 
gant diction,  flowery  language,  correct  composition,  should  be 
called  gospel  preaching  by  the  hearers  ;  when  at  the  same  timev 
human  depravity  has  not  been  set  forth-— or  the  new  birth  and 
experimental  religion  insisted  on— nor  Christ  hardly  mentioned, 
much  less  the  mysteries  of  his  cross,  and  the  completeness  of 
his  righteousness  displayed — but  on  the  contrary,  a  total  igno- 
rance of  a  work  of  grace  on  the  preacher's  heart,  manifest  to 
every  spiritual  man  that  hears  him ;  the  answer  still  is,  infant 
sprinkling  is  the  cause  of  all  this ;  for  if  the  church  had  not  been 
corrupted  by  it,  and  the  majority  had  feared  God  and  loved  reli- 
gion, they  never  could  sit  under  such  preachers. 

In  the  first  ages,  while  believers*  baptism  was  in  practice,  the 
churches  were  nearly  pure  ;  but  no  sooner  did-  that  desolating 
evil  of  infant  sprinkling  creep  in,  but  in  a  very  short  time  the 
face  of  the  church  was  changed.  Then  a  carnal  clergy  succeed-, 
ed — then  every  abominable  error  took  its  rise,  for  a  graceless 
clergy  could  do  no  less  than  err— then  in  a  little  time  the  clergy 
began  to  aim  at  worldly  power  and  dignity — then  the  harlot  of 
Rome  became  caressed  and  established,  and  this  was  her  sup- 
port— then  a  wicked  clergv,  under  pretence  of  seeking  God's 
honour,  interfered  in  the  political  concerns  of  nations,  and  sowed 
discord  among  princes,  and  provoked  the  most  cruel  wars.  Had 
church  membership  continued  on  the  plan  first  established  by 


no 

Christ,  and  had  none  been  admitted  to  baptism  but  believers,  or 
such  as  gave  a  credible  account  of  a  work  of  grace  on  the  heart, 
the  majority  of  the  members  in  churches  would  have  been  such 
as  feared  God  ;  and  none  of  those  evils  would  have  followed. 
Infant  sprinkling  makes  a  carnal  church  ;  a  carnal  church  only 
can  be  a  fighting  or  persecuting  church.  Infant  sprinkling  and 
infant  church  membership,  have  laid  the  foundation  for  all  the 
persecutions  that  have  ever  been  practised  by  the  church  of 
Rome  :  had  it  not  been  for  a  carnal  church,  the  fields  of  Italy, 
France,  Spain,  England,  Germany,  would  never  have  been  cover- 
ed with  human  gore,  by  the  pretended  children  of  Christ.  I  ask, 
could  a  real  christian  church  be  a  persecuting  church  ?  I  know 
the  answer  must  be,  it  cannot.  But  would  the  church  of  Christ 
ever  have  been  so  corrupt,  had  membership  therein  depended  on 
a  religious  experience  ?  It  will — it  must  be  conceded,  that  it 
would  not.  But  was  it  not  infant  sprinkling  that  occasioned  this 
religious  te?t  to  be  laid  aside  ?  and  if  it  were,  is  it  not  to  this 
dreadful  evil  all  the  consequences  are  Owing  ? 

Infant  sprinkling,  by  corrupting  the  church  cf  God,  h-as  made 
her  a  bloody,  a  persecuting  church-^is  now  that  tie  that  binds 
church  and  state  together  on  the  continent,  (for  without  it  there 
could  be  no  national  church,)  the  present  cause  of  ungodly  and 
shameful  persecutions.  Infant  sprinkling  is  that  which  in  Europe 
has  settled  a  numerous  and  licentious  clergy,  who  having  enter- 
ed into  the  political  schemes  of  their  respective  governments, 
have  in  return  been  saddled  ori  the  people  to  ride  them  to  death, 
and  are  the  cause  of  preventing  the  faithful  preaching  of  the  gos- 
pel there  by  others  ;  so  that  ir religion  prevails  under  the  name 
of  established  religion,  and  no  means  can  be  used  to  remedy  it, 
as  the  civil  power  is  enlisted  in  its  defence. 

But  to  come  nearer  home.  If  infant  sprinkling,  and  infant 
church  membership  were  discontinued,  and  the  ancient  practice 
6i  receiving  persons  on  at  relation  of  religious  experience  were 
revived  in  general ;  then  in  a  little  time  a  complete  separation 
would  take  place  between  the  church  and  the  world — -churches 
would  harmonize — an  unconverted  ministry  would  be  banish- 
ed— professors  would  not  look  so  much  like  the  world — the 
church  would  appear  amiable— revivals  of  religion  would  be 
common,  for  the  prejudices  of  infidels  and  others  that  now  exist 
against  the  churches  on  account  of  their  wickedness,  would  van- 
ish— then  christians  would  take  a  pleasure  in  God's  house — then 
true  church  fellowship  would  be  enjoyed—then  the  church 
would  be  the  envy  of  men,  and  terrible  to  the  wicked  as  an  army 
with  banners- — then  numerous  families  would  not  be  confined  to 
attend  places  of  divine  worship,  to  hear  a  man  that  has  never 
known  the  way  to  heaven  himself,  has  no  acquaintance  with 


in 

spiritual  things,  und  therefore  cannot  teach  them  to  others  *  an* 
by  that  means  thousands  would  not  be  deluded,  who  are  now 
lulled  to  sleep  by  these  worst  of  enemies  to  the  soul. 

Things  must  come  to  this  >  the  latter  day  glory  will  shortly 
break  ;  then  infant  church  membership  must  be  at  an  end,  and 
already  does  it  tremble  to  its  base  ;  and  the  feeble  efforts  thai, 
are  making  in  its  support  will  prove  ineffectual.  But,  brethren, 
lay  aside  a  practice  so  pernicious  in  its  consequences,  and  so  de- 
rogatory to  the  honour  and  glory  of  God;  and  remember  your 
responsibility  to  the  great  Head  of  the  church.  Can  you  cal* 
.that  harmless,  which  has  spoiled  the  beauty  of  the  church  of 
God,  has  deluged  her  with  blood,  filled  her  with  errors,  and 
which  now  makes  thousands  rest  secure,  under  the  idea  thai 
\they  have  been  brought  into  covenant  with  God,  and  made  chris 
nans,  while  their  steps  are  taking  hold  of  hell. 


ON  THE  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

THERE  is  no  part  of  Mr.  Edward's  performance  more  to 
be  admired  than  what  he  says  of  baptizing  ;  i.  e.  that  he  "  had 
been  convinced  more  than  four  years  ago,  that  immersion  was 
not  essential  to  baptism  ;"  and  "  though  he  had  since  that, 
preached  several  baptizing  sermons,  without  saying  a  word 
about  the  mode  ;  yet  the  Baptists  did  not  notice  the  omission;, 
but  would  directly  have  observed  it,  had  he  omitted  saying  any- 
thing about  the  subjects."     This, certainly  leaves  an  indelible 
stamp  of  infamy  on  his  character  as  a  religious  man  ;  for  it  is 
well  known,  that  on  uniting  with  the  Baptists,  he  had  professed 
to  hold  all  their  distinguishing  sentiments  ;  and  his  remaining 
with  them,  must  have  been  interpreted  as  a  perfect  coincidence 
between  them  in  sentiment.     He  had  renounced  Poedobaptism 
once,  from  the  pretence  that  he  could  not  concientiously  continu< 
in  the  practice  of  it :  if  afterward  he  was  converted  back  again 
to  his  former  faith,  did  he  not  owe  it  to  his  friends,  and  to  the 
causeof  God  in  particular,to  own  the  changein  his  mind  \  During 
the  four  years  he  had  administered  baptism  as  the  Baptists  do, 
yet  at  the  same  time  believed  others  right  in  this  particular  as 
well  as  they,,  should  he  not,  as  an  honest  man,  and  as  a  christian 
minister,  have  endeavoured  to  convince  his  brethren  of  their 
mistake,  and  to  have  lent  hi£  aid  to  the  opponents  of  the  .Baptists 
on  that  subject  ?  What  reason  sufficiently  weighty  can  he  assign 
for  such  criminal  silence,  when  he  might,  in  advancing  his 
sentiments,  as  far  as  he  knew,  have  brought  the  Baptists  anci 
.Pcedobaptists  together  on  that  head  I 


172 

One  thing  is  manifest  from  his  confession,  that  he  has  not 
a  very  tender  conscience,  but  that  he  can  make  his  religion  bend 
to  the  times  ;  and  that  the  very  same  principle  -would  have 
enabled  him,  in  the  time  of  persecution,  to  have  accommodated 
himself  to  a  false  religion.  For  four  years  he  was  silent  on  the 
mode  of  baptizing  ! !  Reader,  a  man  that  could  temporise  in 
religious  things  so  long,  cannot  be  that  candid  man  he  calls 
himself  in  his  book  ;  neither  can  you  believe  those  reasons  he 
assigns  for  leaving  the  Baptists  are  candid,  as  he  affirms  them 
to  be.  Query,  Could  not  Mr.  E.,  had  it  accorded  with  his 
interest,  have  disguised  his  sentiments  for  the  whole  of  his  life, 
as  well  as  for  four  years  ?  This  is  not  an  impossible  case,  for  he 
does  not  condemn  that  conduct,  nor  does  he  say  he  ever  repented 
on  account  of  it ;  therefore  it  follows,  that  from  real  integrity- 
he  did  not  discontinue  the  practice. 

While  Mr.  E.  mentions  that  his  brethren  did  not  notice  his 
leaving  the  mode  of  baptism  untouched,  he  no  doubt  meant  to 
impress  the  mind  of  his  readers  with  an  idea  of  their  ignorance ; 
or  at  least,  that  they  were,  in  their  opposition  to  Pcedobaptists, 
led  to  act  more  from  party  zeal,  or  prejudice,  than  an  honest 
attachment  to  principle.  This  was  rather  a  compliment  to  them 
than  otherwise,  and  shews,  that  they  were  not  of  a  suspicious 
make,  and  had  thought  that  Mr.  E.  was  an  honest  man  ;  in 
which,  unfortunately  for  them,  they  had  been  deceived,  and  had 
quite  mistaken  his  character.  It  is  a  just  adage,  that  a  suspicious 
mind  evidences  great  depravity  of  heart.  None  are  so  easily 
deceived  as  truly  honest  men  ;  nor  could  any  one  believe  that 
a  man  who  had  pretended  to  search  into  the  merits  of  the 
controversy  between  immersion  and  sprinkling,  and  who  had 
declared  himself  entirely  convinced  of  the  truth  of  the  former, 
and  afterward  to  give  evidence  of  this  conviction  submit  to  this 
rite  ;  I  say,  no  one  could,  under  such  circumstances,  admit  a 
thought,  until  conviction  was  forced  upon  them,  of  his  insin- 
ceritv.  His  new  friends  will  not  probably  feel  as  secure  of  his 
attachments  as  he  thinks  they  do,  nor  would  it  be  in  the  least 
surprising  to  hear  of  his  chopping  about  again  ;  nor  does  it  ap- 
pear improbable,  that  his  partiality  for  a  national  establishment 
which  he  has  manifested  so  abundantly,  will  at  last  lead  him  to 
covet  something  in  the  gift  of  the  mother  church.  If  the  Baptists 
did  not  suspect  him,  it  was  from  their  consciousness  that  the 
ordinance  is  so  plainly  revealed  in  the  word,  that  they  did  not 
think  any  man  would  be  disposed  to  call  it  in  question,  who  had 
once  dispassionately  exainined  \t ;  and  such  is  the  prevalence  of 
the  truth  on  that  head,  that  rcedobaptists  have  been  more; 
puzzled  to  maintain  their  ground  here,  than  when  reasoning  on 
'he  subjects  of  baptism,  though  their  defeat  in  both  is  notorious* 


173 

I  want  language  to  express  his  effrontery,  when  he  says,  *  It 
appears  to  me,  that  the  Baptists  are  not  so  tenacious  of  the 
mode,  as  of  the  subjects  of  baptism."  On  what,  sir,  do  you 
ground  such  an  opinion  ?  Did  you  ever,  sir,  see  a  Baptist  author, 
that  reasoned  for  the  one,  and  neglected  the  other  ?  You  know 
I  hat  this  is  destitute  of  the  least  shadow  of  truth,  nor  can  you 
furnish  any  proof  of  what  you  now  unblushingly  affirm ;  and 
give  me  leave,  sir,  to  say,  that  your  word  is  not  to  be  relied 
on  ;  for  you  have  not  acted  the  christian,  or  the  gentleman,  in 
this  controversy.  But  you  had  a  conversation  with  a  Baptist 
minister,  who  told  you,  that  the  u  mode  of  baptism,  by  immer- 
sion only,  did  not  appear  equally  plain  as  the  subject."  If  this 
be  true,  is  the  opinion  of  the  gentleman  you  advert  to  evidence 
of  the  fact?  Did  the  Baptists  constitute  that  gentleman  the  organ 
of  their  sentiment,  and  are  they  guided  by  his  views  in  this 
business  ?  A  Baptist  told  you  so,  and  therefore  all  the  Baptists 
believe  so — wonderful  logic !  Who  is  that  Baptist,  sir,  is  it 
your  dear  self  ?  I  shrewdly  suspect  your  veracity  ;  and  the 
farther  I  have  gone  into  an  examination  of  your  performance, 
there  has  appeared  so  much  duplicity  and  shuffling,  and  such 
unchristian  misrepresentations  of  Mr.  Booth,  that  by  this  time 
I  can  credit  nothing  you  advance.  That  man  who  could  give  a 
mutilated  account  of  the  reasonings  of  an  opponent,  intending 
them  to  pass  for  the  whole  sentiment  of  the  author — that  can 
subdivide  texts,  split  them  into  fractions,  try  to  puzzle  rather 
than  lead  to  truth — that  under  a  specious  pretence  of  zeal  for 
God,  and  the  honour  of  his  cause,  becomes  a  detailer  of  error ; 
I  say,  that  all  such  a  man  declares  to  be  true,  on  his  own  credit, 
is  not  to  be  received. 

There  is  a  sideway  argument  advanced  by  Mr.  E.  which  is 
designed  to  shew,  that  words  are  not  always  to  be  taken  in  their 
strict  and  literal  sense,  but  frequently  in  a  qualified  and  restricted 
one.  The  argument  will  be  this  :  4  The  proper  and  obvious' 
meaning  of  "  deipnon?  is,  a  feast  or  common  meal.  If  this 
be  true,  I  should  be  glad  to  know,  whether  a  person  who,  in 
the  use  of  that  ordinance,  (meaning  the  supper)  takes  only  a 
piece  of  bread  of  half  an  inch  square,  and  drinks  a  table  spoonful 
of  wine,  which  is  neither  a  feast  nor  a  common  meal,  and  so 
does  not  come  up  to  the  proper  meaning  of  the  word,  can  be 
said  to  have  received  the  Lord's  supper  V  The  argument  from 
this  will  be,  that  if  a  little  bread,  and  a  little  wine,  are  called  a 
supper,  although  the  person  has  not  fed  to  the  full,  may  not 
baptism  be  something  beside  dipping,  even  if  baptizing  signifies 
to  immerse  I  that  is,  may  not  a  little  water  applied  to  the  body 
be  baptism,  though  the  word  baptized  signifies  to  be  immersed  in 
water?  There  is  in  this  argument  a  very  ^reat  concession  made 

Z 


174 

by  the  author  against  his  will,  that  is,  that  taking  a  little  bread  and 

ruine  was  a  supper  in  an  improper  sense,  and  that  sprinkling  is 

baptism  in  an  improper  sense  ;  and  that  if  one  is  tolerated  the. 

other  ought  to  be,  and  that  if  the  one  is  rejected  the  other  must 

be  also.     I  thank  you,  sir,  for  speaking  the  truth  for  once  ;  it 

is  not  your  happy  lot  to  do  it  often.     Yes,  sir,  you  are  right,  if 

sprinkling  is  baptism,  it  must  not  be  so  in  a  strict  and  proper, 

but  in  a  contracted  and  qualified  sense.    But  then,  sir,  here  will 

lie  your  mistake,  that  there  is  no  one  instance  of  baptism  being 

mentioned  in  any  other  than  in  its  strict  and  unqualified  sense  ; 

whereas  the  instance  you  bring  will  not  apply,  because  when  it 

is  called  a  supper,  there  is  something  connected  with  the  text 

which  shews  it  was  not  to  mean  a  supper  in  the  usual  acceptation 

of  the  word,  but  in  a  qualified  sense  only.   When  the  command 

was  given  by  the  Saviour  to  partake,  of  the  supper,  had  he  not 

said  any  thing  which  could  make  it  evident  a  common  meal  was 

not  intended,  we  then  should  act  as  in  baptizing.;  as,  in  the  last, 

being  guided  by  the  strict  signification  of  the  word,  we  should 

immerse,  so  in  the  first,  we  should  have  made  a  full  meal,  and 

thought  he  intended  we  should  satisfy  the  cravings  of  nature* 

But  while  in  the  one  case  (that  of  baptism),  he  has  ordered  the 

thing  to  be  done,  without  qualifying  the  sense  of  it ;  in  the  other 

he  has  not  done  so,  but  has  qualified  it.    And  as  in  the  one  case 

we  are  told  to  baptize,  and  baptize  signifies  to  dip,  and  there  is 

no  instance  where  the  word  is  used  in  a  sense  differing  from  its 

primitive  meaning,  and  we  in  obedience  do  so  according  to  its 

strict  sense :  yet,  in  the  other  case,  when  he  commands  us  to 

eat  of  the  supper,  and  we  know  that  the  word  supper  means  a 

common  meal,  yet  we  know  it  does  not  mean  so  here,  and  that 

because  there  is  something  said  about  it,  in  which  they  widelv 

differ. 

To  shew  that  a  little  bread  and  wine  is  called  a  supper,  and 
is  immediately  distinguished  from  a  common  meal,  I  will  quote 
the  text :  u  For  in  eating  everyone  taketh  before  other,  his  ow?i 
supper :  and  one  is  hungry,  and  another  is  drunken.  What?  have 
ye  not  houses  to  eat  and  to  drink  in  ?  or  despise  ye  the  church 
of  God,  and  shame  them  that  have  not,"  1  Cor.  xi.  21,  22. 
The  apostle  declares,  verse  20,  "  This  is  not  to  eat  the  Lordys 
supper;"  and  evidently  points  out  where  their  mistake  lay,  in 
that  they  had  considered  it  a  meal  to  satisfy  hunger,  and  to 
indulge  in  intemperance  ;  but  he  now  rectifies  their  mistake,  and 
lets  them  know  it  was  not  a  supper  for  the  indulgence  of  appetite, 
nor  even  in  an  usual,  but  a  qualified  sense.  Can  our  opponents 
shew  any  such  authority  for  understanding  sprinkling  to  be 
baptism,  as  we  have  shewn  that  a  little  wine  and  bread  is  called 
a  ;.ujper  ? 


175 

But  it  was  called  a  supper,  not  with  reference  to  the  body,  but 
the  soul  j  and  of  the  soul  it  may  be  said  to  be  a  common,  or  full 
meal ;  for  in  the  supper  the  soul  feeds  and  feasts  on  Christ.  Nei- 
ther is  it  a  light  meal,  but  a  satisfying  one ;  and  therefore  it  may, 
in  the  strict  sense  of  the  word,  be  used,  and  the  wit  of  Mr.  E.  ail 
falls  to  the  ground.  But  cart  he  shew  how  sprinkling  is  as  fully 
immersion  or  baptism,  as  we  have  shewn  that  the  supper  is  a 
full  feast  or  meal  to  the  believer  ?  What  becomes  of  his  criticism^ 
He  says  that  deipnon  means,  a  full  meal :  be  it  so  j  the  supper 
is  such  in  a  spiritual  sense  to  the  believer,  and  the  piece  of  bread^ 
of  half  an  inch  square,  with  the  table  spoonful  of  wine,  were 
as  just  a  representation  of  the  sacrifice  of  Christ,  as  a  much 
larger  portion,  and  therefore  answers  all  the  purposes  the  other 
could ;  by  which  the  worthy  communicant  makes  a  full  spiritual 
meal  on  faith's  object,  the  blessed  Redeemer. 

We  shall  certainly  object  to  the  statement  cf  Mr.  E.,  that 
"  All  our  knowledge  of  the  manner  of  baptizing,  must,  at  this 
distance  of  time  from  the  nrst  institution,  be  collected  from  the 
word 4  baptize'  the  circumstances  cf  baptism,  and  the  allusions 
of  scripture  to  that  ordinance."  He  has,  indeed,  started  fair,; 
but  he  does  not  conform  to  the  premises  laid  down  by  himself. 
At  one  time,  you  shall  see  him  pay  no  regard  to  apostolic 
example  ;  then  you  will  see  him  introduce  but  two  allusions  to 
baptism  ;  and,  finally,  you  will  discern,  that  he  is  not  by  any 
means  willing  to  let  those  places  where  dipping  is  expresslv 
mentioned,  be  any  guide  to  us.  lam  not  altogether  satisfied 
with  his  statement  of  the  controversy,  which  is,  to  inquire,  "  I.s 
immersion  essential  to  baptism  ?  Or,  in  other  words,  is  there  no 
other  baptism  but  what  is  by  immersion  ?"  If  the  question  were, 
is  there  such  a  thing  as  baptism,  without  the  body  being  over- 
whelmed, or  covered  all  over,  then  it  would  be  a  question  that 
would  strike  at  the  root  of  this  dispute.  The  quibbling  of  these 
gentlemen  rests  on  the  word  "  dip,  plunge"  which  pre-sup- 
poses  a  person  going  into  the  water,  and  another  putting  him 
under  it ;  in  opposition  to  which,  they  advance  certain  passages 
where  there  was  not  a  going  into  the  water,  and  yet  the  person 
or  thing  is  said  to  be  baptized  :  from  which  they  raise  their 
objection,  that  if  a  thing  may  be  baptized  without  going  into 
the  water,  or  being  put  under  it,  which  supposes  the  existence 
of  a  pool  or  stream ;  then,  why  may  not  applying  water  to  a  part 
of  the  body  only,  be  meant  by  baptizing  ?  In  answer  to  this,  it 
may  be  said,  that  although  instances  may  be  produced  where 
a  person  or  thing  is  said  to  have  been  baptized  which  has  not 
been  put  under  water,  in  a  pool  or  stream  ;  yet  no  instance  can 
be  produced  where  a  person  or  thing  is  said  to  have  been 
baptized,  which  has  not  been  entirely  covered  over  with  water, 


176 

or  whatever  element  it  was  said  to  be  baptized  in.  There  arc 
but  two  ways  in  which  a  person  or  thing  is  ever  said  to  have 
been  baptized,  yet  in  both  there  is  an  overwhelming,  or  complete 
covering.  The  one  is,  by  the  person  or  thing  put  into  the 
element,  and  covered  over  by  it;  the  other  is,  the  element  covering- 
over  the  person  or  thing' :  yet  in  both  instances  the  same  effect 
follows, — an  overwhelming-,  covering,  or  burying.  In  the  one 
case,  the  element  is  passive  in  which  the  baptism  is  effected, 
and  the  person  or  thing  is  the  active  ag'ejit :  but  in  the  other 
case,  the  person  or  thing  baptized  is  passive,  and  the  element 
is  the  active  agent ;  yet  in  both  there  is  an  entire  covering,  or 
burying.  The  question,  then,  will  be  varied  thus  :  Is  there  a 
single  instance  to  be  found,  in  the  word  of  God,  where  baptism 
is  spoken  of,  either  by  example  or  otherwise,  where  it  does  not 
intend  an  entire  covering  or  burial  ?  Or,  can  there  be  found 
a  single  Greek  lexicon,  or  Greek  author,  (such  excepted  as 
.  have  compiled  lexicons  since  sprinkling  has  been  in  use,  and 
have  taken  the  meaning  of  the  word  baptize^  from  the  practice 
of  modern  times)  who,  in  using  the  word  baptize,  employ  it  so 
as  to  mean  a  partial,  but  not  an  entire  covering  ? 

Our  opponents  think  they  have  done  a  great  deal,  and  have 
entirely  ruined  our  cause,  when  they  prove  that  a  person  or  thing 
has  been  baptized,  when  it  has  not  been  dipped  under ;  but, 
contrariwise,  the  thing  that  covers  descends  on  them.  After 
all,  however,  they  have  done  just  nothing  ;  because,  in  every 
instance  they  produce,  there  has  been  a  complete  overwhelming, 
and  the  only  difference  has  been,  that  in  some  cases  the  person 
or  thing  baptized  has  been  active,  and  in  others  passive  :  but 
in  both,  a  burial  or  covering  takes  place.  If  they  would  do  any 
thing  to  purpose,  let  them  point  out  a  single  place  in  the  Bible, 
in  an  ancient  Greek  author,  or  in  Greek  lexicons  that  have  been 
compiled  prior  to  the  use  of  sprinkling,  where  the  word  baptize 
is  ever  used  to  mean  u  sprinkle,  or  asperse"  They  will  tell  us, 
the  word  baptize  is  sometimes  applied  to  pouring,  grant  it  \ 
but  then  it  is  such  a  pouring  as  buries  or  overwhelms  the 
subject* 

Upon  the  whole,  this  may  be  safely  affirmed,  that  no  one 
instance  can  be  produced  by  our  opponents  where  a  person  or 
thing  is  said  to  have  been  baptized,  but  that  person  or  thing 
was  completely  overwhelmed,  or  covered;  let  the  covering 
have  been  effected  either  by  putting  it  into  the  element,  or  the 
element  covering  it.  And  all  they  can  prove  is,  that,  in  some 
solitary  instances,  a  person  or  thing  is  said  to  have  been  baptized 
by  the  element  descending  on  it,  and  covering  of  it  completely; 
though  in  most  of  the  instances,  where  a  person  or  thing  is  said 
to  have  been  baptized,  it  was  by  putting  it  under  the  element* 


m 

Therefore,  covering  or  overwhelming  is  essential  to  baptism, 
though  dipping  is  not ;  for  though  dipping  or  immersing  is 
essential  to  baptism,  when  the  person  or  thing  to  be  baptized  is 
the  active  agent,  and  the  element  the  passive  ;  yet  dipping  is 
not  essential  to  baptism  when  the  person  or  thing  to  be  baptized 
is  the  passive  agent,  but  the  element  the  active  one  :  but,  in 
both  cases,  a  covering  over,  or  overwhelming,  is  essential,  for 
without  that  there  is  no  baptism.  From  whence  it  may  readily 
be  seen,  that  a  partial  pouring,  or  a  partial  dipping,  is  never 
called  baptism,  unless  it  respects  the  part  dipped,  or  the  part 
poured  on,  which  in  that  case  is  so  called.  In  this  last  sense, 
the  hand  is  said  sometimes  to  be  baptized,  when  the  man  was 
not ;  here  the  baptism  is  restricted  to  a  part,  and  that  as  dis- 
tinguished from  the  whole  person.  However  trifling  these 
distinctions  may  first  appear  to  the  reader,  yet,  in  the  sequel  he 
will  find  they  enter  into  the  very  heart  of  the  controversy,  put 
an  end  to  several  unmeaning  cavils,  detect  the  sophistry  of  Mr. 
E.  and  other  Poedobaptist  authors ;  and,  at  the  same  time,  shew, 
that  where  the  word  baptize  is  variously  applied,  it  invariably 
means  the  same  thing  (that  is,  a  covering),  though  at  first  it 
may  seem  otherwise. 

Mr.  E.  objects  to  the  Greek  word  baptoy  being  introduced 
into  the  controversy  ;  and  as  a  reason  for  his  objection,  urges 
that  "  it  is  never  used  in  scripture  respecting  this  ordinance." 
Yet,  lest  this  should  have  the  appearance  of  cowardice  (a  thing 
not  to  be  brooked  by  a  man  of  his  courage)  he  undertakes  to 
make  it  appear,  at  least,  that  it  is  u  a  term  of  such  latitude,  that 
he  who  should  attempt  to  prove,  from  its  use  in  various  authors, 
an  absolute  and  total  immersion,  will  find  he  has  undertaken 
that  which  he  can  never  fairly  perform."  He  then  gives  instances 
of  its  various  use,  which  we  shall  examine.  But  why  should 
Mr.  E.  be  so  squeamish  concerning  this  word  ?  Is  it  because 
he  does  not  wish  to  introduce  foreign  matter  into  the  dispute, 
and  intends  to  keep  up  to  the  first  principles  adopted  in  his  setting 
out  ?  No,  this  cannot  be  :  for  he  has  entertained  us  with  a  long 
harangue  about  female  communion,  though  it  is  a  subject  in 
which  we  are  both  agreed.  But  the  gentleman  will  not  tell  his 
true  reason :  he  is  so  afraid  of  "  lexicographers  and  common 
sense,"  that  the  very  mention  of  them  makes  the  blood  freeze 
in  his  veins  ;  and,  suspecting  that  the  word  bapto  may  not  be 
interpreted  to  suit  him,  he  is  determined  to  say  as  little  abou* 
it  as  possible.  This  word  is  not  so  foreign  as  he  would  have  u:: 
believe  ;  but  on  the  contrarv,  as  lie  has  acknowledged,  that  the- 
dispute  about  the  node  of  baptizing  must  be  settled  by  the 
meaning  of  the  word  baptize,  to  understand  its  meaning,  this 
may  be  considered  as  the  key  :    bapto  is  the  root  from  which. 


these  words  baptize  and  baptism  proceed.  Now,  if  the  ro©i 
itself  signifies  to  dip,  plunge,  bun',  or  overwhelm,  then  of  course 
the  words  baptize,  and  baptism,  which  are  mere  derivations  from 
that  word,  are  to  be  explained  by  it.  This  is  certainly  the  fact, 
and  from  hence  arises  the  objection  to  consider  it ;  for  he  was 
sensible,  that  tracing  these  words  to  their  source  would  be  at 
once  to  expose  the  weakness  of  his  cause. 

But  how  does  he  prove  the  great  latitude  given  to  the  word  ? 
Does  it  mean  to  sprinkle,  or  asperse  ?  Let  him  speak.  It  is, 
said  he,  applied  to  "  the  throwing  of  a  person  into  the  mire," 
Job  ix.  31.  This  is  indeed  singular,  for  it  is  not  so  used  ;  the 
word  mire  is  not  found  in  the  text,  but  the  words  are,  u  Yet 
shalt  thou  plunge  me  into  the  ditch."  Mr.  E.  had  nothing  to 
do,  but  to  make  a  little  alteration  in  the  text,  put  the  word 
*'  mire"  instead  of  "  ditch"  and  as  he  hoped  his  readers  would 
take  his  quotations  for  genuine,  he  knew  that  persons  would 
think  a  burying  in  mud  to  be  impracticable,  and  conclude  it  was 
a  mere  defiling  a  part  of  the  cloathing  which  was  intended. 
Could  he  not  as  easily  conceive  of  the  ditch  containing  stagnant 
waters,  which  is  quite  common,  and  a  being  plunged  beneath 
them,  an  emblem  of  the  foulness  of  Job's  transgressions,  and  of 
their  numbers,  as  overwhelming  would  more  suitably  express  ? 
I  hope,  however,  that  we  shall  not  find  his  next  quotations  quite 
so  imperfect,  or  we  shall  not  thank  him  for  his  M  taste"  of  them 
which  he  promised. 

His  second  instance,  is  Avhat  he  calls  "  a  partial  dipping," 
Matth.  xxvi.  23.  "  He  that  dippeth  (baptizeth)  his  hand  with 
me  in  the  dish."  It  is  not  said  the  man  was  baptized  or  dipped 
in  the  dish,  but  his  hand  ;  and  this  was  true  of  his  hand,  as  far 
as  it  was  in  the  dish.  Had  the  text  said,  the  man  was  baptized, 
or  dipped,  in  the  dish,  and  then  it  should  appear  that  only  his 
hand  had  been  so  used  ;  in  that  case,  the  baptism  would  have 
been  a  partial  one,  because  a  part  would  have  been  baptized  for 
the  whole :  but  when  it  is  only  spoken  of  the  hand,  and  that  was 
actually  in  the  dish,  how  can  it  be  called  a  partial  plunging  ? 
But  the  baptizing  mentioned  is  not  to  be  applied  to  the  hand, 
but  to  the  contents  of  it ;  and  when  the  hand  is  said  to  be 
baptized,  it  has  reference  strictly  to  the  custom  of  the  Jews  at 
the  passover  dipping  the  unleavened  bread  and  bitter  herbs  into 
the  sauce,  called  charoseth  ;  and  it  was  into  this  that  the  hand 
dipped  that  unleavened  bread,  and  those  bitter  herbs.  This 
takes  away  all  the  difficulty,  and  fixes  the  sense  entirely  in 
favour  of  immersion,  as  the  things  in  question  were  entirely 
buried  in  what  the  dish  contained.  To  make  it  appear,  that 
the  baptism  in  question  refers  to  these,  and  not  the  hand,  you 
will  see  that  the  parallel  text  in  Mark  does  not  say  the  hand 


179 

was  dipped,  but  simply,  he  that  "dippeth  f9  manifestly  referring 
to  the  things  ubove  mentioned  :  "  And  he  answered  and  said 
unto  them,  it  is  one  of  the  twelve  that  dippeth  with  me  in  the 
dish,"  Mark  xiv.  20.  The  custom  among  the  Jews  of  dipping 
the  unleavened  bread  is  thus  performed.  See  Gill's  Exposition 
of  Matth.  xxvi.  23.  "  The  account  Maimonides  gives  of  it  is, 
the  charoseth  is  a  precept  from  the  words  of  the  scribes,  in 
remembrance  of  the  day  in  which  they  served  in  Egypt;  and 
how  did  they  make  it  ?  They  took  dates,  or  berries,  or  raisins, 
and  the  like,  and  stamped  them,  and  put  vinegar  into  them, 
and  seasoned  them  with  spices,  and  brought  it  upon  the  table  in 
the  night  of  the  passover ;  and  he  rolled  up  the  unleavened 
bread  and  bitter  herbs  together,  and  dipped  them  in  the, 
charoseth." 

The  third  instance  he  produces  is,  that  the  word  is  taken  tp 
stain ;  and  adduces  in  support  of  it  Rev.  xix.  13.  "  And  he  was 
cloathed  with  a  vesture  dipped  in  blood."  Surely  Mr.  E.  must 
think  his  readers  prepared  to  swallow  any  thing,  when  he  pro- 
duced this  text  to  prove  the  word  "  bapto"  signifies  to  stain; 
because  the  text  does  not  say  stained  with,  but  "  dipped  in 
blood."  And  though  it  will  not  be  denied,  that  a  garment  dipped 
in  blood  is  stained  with  it,  yet  it  was  not  stained  by  affusion,  but: 
by  an  immersion  of  the  garment  in  it.  Had  it  been,  as  he  insinu- 
ates, only  stained,  (which  is  not  the  case)  still  it  would  not  have 
been  in  favour  of  sprinkling  ;  because  it  was  not  a  partial  one, 
but  such  a  staining  as  entirely  covered  the  garment,  by  which 
the  garment  was  indeed  baptized,  or  overwhelmed  with  it ;  nor 
can  he  serve  our  cause  better  than  to  produce  such  texts.  Th« 
translation  plainly  shews  that  the  translators  thought  u  bapto** 
meant  to  dip  :  perhaps  they  were  not  to  be  compared  with  Mr.1 
E.  for  Greek  learning. 

The  fourth  is  the  case  of  Nebuchadnezzar,  whose  body  "  was 
wet,  (baptized)  by  the  dew,"  Dan.  iv.  33.  "  And  his  body  was 
wet  with  the  dew  of  heaven."  This  passage,  brought  to  prove, 
as  I  suppose,  .that  bapto  may  be  taken  to  sprinkle,  certainly  is* 
not  in  point,  unless  only  a  part  of  his  body  was  wet,  and  then 
the  word  baptize  applied  to  the  whole  man.  This  cannot  bt 
contested  ;  for  the  whole  body  was  exposed  to  the  action  of  the 
dew,  and  was  covered  or  overwhelmed  therewith  :  and  when  it 
is  affirmed  his  body  was  wet,  it  was  not  a  partial,  but  universal 
wetting,  such  a  wetting  as  extended  over  the  whole  body. 
Nothing  will  set  this  matter  in  a  fairer  light,  than  to  shew  from 
a  celebrated  traveller  in  those  countries,  that  the  dews  were  sq 
copious,  that  persons  or  things  exposed  to  them  might  be  said 
literally  to  be  baptized,  or  covered  therein.  See  MaundrelV 
Travels  through  Palestine,  wherein  h_e  observe*,  that  the  u  dor 


180 

was  like  rain,  and  that  their  tents  were  wet  as  if  dipped  in  the 
water," 

Mr.  E.  in  his  fifth  objection  to  the  word  bapto^  as  always 
signifying  immersion,  carries  us  away  to  Homer,  the  Greek 
poet,  who  uses  it  thus  :  "  The  lake  was  baptized,"  he  adds, 
"  stained  or  coloured  with  blood."  Is  it  not  a  little  surprising, 
that  a  man  who  objected  to  the  use  of  lexicographers  to  find  out 
the  meaning  of  words,  should  now  refer  us  to  a  heathen  poet  ? 
Where  is  Mr.  E.'s  consistency  ?  Is  it  criminal  in  Mr.  Booth  to 
refer  to  human  authorities,  while  his  accuser,  Mr.  E.,  is  at 
perfect  liberty,  nay,  glories  in  the  privilege  of  doing  so  ?  But 
the  most  strange  part  of  the  business  is,  that  he  does  not  quote 
the  sober  criticism  of  a  prose  writer  ;  but  avails  himself  of  the 
flight  of  a  poet — of  poetic  fable,  where  every  thing  is  fiction,  or 
where  latitude  is  allowed  to  colour  the  most  insignificant  things, 
so  as  to  make  them  appear  of  the  utmost  moment.  This  was 
the  precise  case  with  the  passage  referred  to  in  Homer,  who, 
allowing  himself  in  high  poetic  colouring,  represents  the  lake  as 
entirely  covered  with  the  blood  of  a  frog  ;  which  he  calls 
baptizing  the  lake  #.    Neither  does  he  lose  sight  of  the  original 

*  The  following  are  specimens  of  poetic  extravagance  in  Homer,  in  his 
battle  of  the  frogs  and  mice,  and  plainly  shew,  that  the  Grecian  bard  by  using 
the  word  baptize  in  the  sense  to  cover,  did  but  pursue  the  strain  of  hyperbole 
that  pervades  many  parts  of  his  sportive  poem.  I  use  the  translation  of 
Cowper,  because  more  literal  than  that  of  Mr.  Pope. 

"  Limnocharis*  at  Troglodytes f  cast 

"  A  mill-stone  weight  of  rock." 

»*  Psycharpaxi*''      ■"  upheaving  from  the  ground 

M  A  rock  that  had  incumbered  long  the  bank, 

"  Hurl'd  it  against  Pelobatesfl  " 

It  seems,  that  among  these  wonderful  heroes 

"  There  was  a  mouse,  young,  beautiful  and  brave, 

*i like  another  Mars; 

"  He  fought,  and  Meridarpax§  was  his  name* 
*'  A  mouse,  among  all  mice  without  a  peer." 

This  mouse  in  his  fury  vowed 

"  T'  extirpate  the  whole  croaking  race.'* 
Jupiter  heard-^-he  was  amazed — he  called  to  Pallas  and  Mars  to  quel? 

m  With  force  comb'm'd  the  sanguinary  chief;" 
but  Mars  declined,  for  said  he, 

11  Neither  the  force  of  Pallas,  nor  the  force 

"  Of  Mars,  O  Jove  !  will  save  the  destin'd  frogs 

"  From  swift  destruction.     Let  us  all  descend 

"  To  aid  them;  or,  lest  al!  suffice  not,  grasp 

"  And  send  abroad  thy  biggest  bolt." 

*  The  beauty  of  the  lake.         f  The  crumb-catcher.         £  A  :rcepcr  intp  holr, 
ij  The  mud-tup! h.-  §  The  svrafl-catcken 


181 

meaning  of  fhe  word  in  this  allusion  ;  for  if  he  wished  to  b§ 
understood  only  as  mentioning  the  sprinkling  of  the  blood  of  an» 
insignificant  frog  on  the  waters  of  the  lake,  the  narrative  would 
Itave  been  mean  and  contemptible  in  any  poet,  much  more  in  a 
*'  Homer  ;"  but  when  he  indulges  in  the  latitude  allowed  him  as 
a  poet,  assumes  the  wonderful,  and  makes  the  blood  of  the  frog 
to  C0WET,  or  overwhelm,  and  as  a  consequence,  to  stain  the  lake  ; 
then  it  is,  the  reader  admires  the  fertile  imagination  of  the  poet,, 
while  he  is  not  deceived  as  to  the  real  meaning.  Every  one 
knows,  that  such  writers  do  not  confine  themselves  strictly  to 
the  meaning  of  words  ;  in  the  same  sense  as  a  man  uses  the* 
words  infinite  and  eternal,  to  convey  the  ideas  of  a  distant 
period,  or  something  of  magnitude :  but  such  a  critic  as  Mr.  E. 
would  deny  existence  to  be  infinite  or  eternal,  because  the  words 
are  applied  figuratively  to  things  that  are  not ;  or  assert,  that 
infinite  and  eternal  do  not  mean  what  they  do,  merely  because 
applied  to  limited  creatures* 

His  sixth  and  seventh  instances,  are  no  more  in  point ;  for,, 
granting  that  the  face  being  smeared  all  over,  or  coloured,  is  by 
"  Aristophanes"  called  a  baptizing  of  the  face,  and  that  the  hand 
pressing  a  substance  containing  a  liquid,  upon  which  pressure  it 
suddenly  bursts  out  and  covers  the  hand,  which  by  Aristotle,  is 
Galled  a  baptizing  :  who  does  not  see,  that  neither  of  these  is  a 
deviation  from  the  strict  meaning  of  the  word,  which  is,  to  dips 
•or  cover  ?  Aristophanes  does  not  say  the  man  was  baptized,  but 
his  face;  and  if  the  colouring  was  all  over  his  face,  which  indeed 
he  affirms,  and  that  only  was  said  to  be  baptized,  how  in  the 
name  of  sense  can  it  operate  against  the  original  signification 
of  the  word  ?  So  also,  in  the  last  case,  the  hand,  and  not  the 
man  himself,  is  said  to  be  baptized  ;  and  when  the  liquid 
effusing  from  the  substance  covers  it,  or  the  hand  is  dipped 
in  it,  can  it  with  propriety  be  said  that  this  is  a  departure 
from  the  original  sense  of  the  term  ?  If,  indeed,  it  had  been 
affirmed  that  these  men  had  been  baptized,  and  afterward  it  had 
appeared,  that  the  hand  or  face  only  was,  then  there  would  have 
been  meaning  in  the  objection  of  our  opponents  ;  and  that 
because,  while -the  whole  man  was  said  to>  baptized,  a  part  .of 
the  man  only  was  in  reality.    In  that  case,  sprinkling  might  well 

In  perfect  correspondence  with  this  poetical  wildness,  with  the  Wood  of 
Pternophagus  * 

"  The  bank  around  was  spattered," 

.And  when  Crambophagusf  fell,  his  blood  overspread  che  lake  , 

"  redd'ning  with  his  blood 

*"'  The  wave." 

*  Tfe  ^on-caler ,  f  fhe  cabbage-devours. 

A  a 


182 

be  deemed  baptism.  But  it  is  objected,  the  word  is  taken  to 
stain.  It  is  so  only  in  a  consequential  sense,  as  a  garment  dipped 
in  blood  becomes  stained,  and  as  a  garment  dipped  in  the  juice 
of  grapes  is  stained  by  the  juice.  Now,  the  dipping  is  the 
baptizing,  the  staining  is  a  consequence  of  the  dipping :  so  in 
the  above  instances,  the  substance  covering  the  hand  and  the 
face  was  the  baptism  ;  but  the  staining  was  a  mere  consequence 
of  that  covering. 

Mr,  E.,  from  hence,  is  wrong  in  his  conclusion,  when  he  says, 
*c  So  various  is  the  term  bapto" — How  various,  sir  ?  Does  it  not 
rather  appear,  that  it  invariably  means  to  dip,  cover,  or  over- 
whelm I  But  it  means  to  "  wet  and  stain."  Not  so,  sir,  in  its 
primary,  but  only  in  a  consequential  sense  ;  as  a  thing  must  of 
.consequence  be  wet  that  is  dipped  in,  or  covered  with,  water  -t 
and  as  a  thing  must,  as  a  consequence  be  stained,  after  it  is. 
dipped  in,  or  covered  over  with  a  dye.  You  may  indeed,  sir, 
have  been  "  sick,"  very  "  sick,  in  seeing  Dr.  Gill's  strictures  on 
those  passages ;  but  we  believe  your  sickness  originated  in  disap- 
pointment, that  his  solid  remarks  were  not  to  be  overturned  by 
your  sophistry,  and  that  it  was  not  in  your  power  to  blunt  the 
edge  of  his  weapons. 

We  shall  now  follow  Mr.  E.  in  his  remarks  on  the  word  bap- 
tizo9  which  he  admits  to  be  a  scripture  term,  and  the  meaning  of 
which  will  be  conclusive  in  this  argument.  His  object  is  to 
shew,  that  this  word  is  taken  in  different  senses  in  scripture, 
and  means  td-sprinkle,  pour,  and  dip,  and  that  all  of  them  are  alike 
called  baptism.  If  he  should  succeed,  we  are  indeed  defeated ; 
but  let  us  see  how  he  manages  his  matters*  To  prove  the  above, 
he  refers  to  Heb.  ix.  10.  "  Which  stood  only  in  meats  and 
drinks,  and  divers  washings,  ( baptisms  )  and  carnal  ordinances." 
Mark  vii.  4, ifc  And  when  they  come  from  the  market,  excepting 
they  wash,  (baptize)  they  eat  not."  And  many  other  things 
there  be,  which  they  have  received  to  hold,  as  the  washing 
(baptizing)  of  cups  and  pots,  brazen  vessels,  and  of  tables." 
Luke  xi.  38.  "  And  when  the  Pharisee  saw  it,  he  marvelled, 
that  he  had  not  first  washed  (baptized)  before  dinner." 

He  then  asks,  u  Is  the  word  baptize  used  in  these  instances 
to  express  immersion  only  f "  The  reader  may  observe  that  the 
first  instance  proves  it  is  not.  The  apostle  plainly  expresses  the 
Jewish  ablutions  by  the  term  c  baptisms.9  I  might  ask  in  return, 
how  do  the  Jewish  ablutions  prove  that  immersion  only  is  not 
baptism  ?  Is  there  any  place  where  any  thing  but  an  immersion 
is  called  baptism  among  the  Jews  I  Why  did  not  Mr.  E.  furnish 
us  with  some  quotations  where  sprinkling,  in  the  Jewish  rites, 
is  called  baptism  ?  Was  it  enough  for  him  to  say  they  were 
called  "  baptisms,"  and  then  infer  its  being  done  in  a  different 


183 

Way,  when  he  knew  they  were  called  "  baptisms**  not  because 
done  by  pouring  or  sprinkling  ;  but  because  done  for  different 
purposes,  at  different  times,  and  in  different  elements,  as  a 
cleansing  from  ceremonial  defilement — cleansing  of  the  leper 
— bathing  of  the  priests — dipping  in  blood  ? 

Mr.  E.  says  that  Mr.  Booth  has  granted  that  the  apostle  uses 
the  term  i  baptisms'  in  this  place,  to  denote  pouring  and  sprink- 
ling as  well  as  immersion,"  and  adds,  u  a  man  must  be  very 
defective  in  point  of  modesty  who  will  even  attempt  to  deny  it." 
This  quotation  from  Booth  is  entirely  false  :  he  never  granted, 
but  his  words  are,  "  Were  I  to  grant  it."  Does  this  gentleman 
talk  of  modesty,  who  can  wilfully  misrepresent  an  author?  Any 
man  may  see,  that  granting  what  is  here  said  to  be  granted, 
would  be  nothing  less  than  to  give  up  the  argument. 

44  I  ask,"  (says  he)  u  whether  immersion  of  the  whole  body 
was  any  part  of  the  service  ?"  Yes,  sir,  and  to  gratify  you,  I  will 
take  the  liberty  to  place  before  you  a  few  of  those  texts  that 
relate  to  Jewish  baptizings.  "  As  for  the  living  bird,  he  shall 
take  it,  and  the  cedar  wood,  and  the  scarlet,  and  the  hyssop,  and 
shall  dip  them  and  the  living  bird,  in  the  blood  of  the  bird  that 
was  killed  over  the  running  water,"  Lev.  xiv.  6.  Verse  8.  "  And 
he  (the  leper)  that  is  to  be  cleansed,  shall  wash  his  cloaths,  and 
shave  off  all  his  hair,  and  wash  himself  in  water,  that  he  may  be 
clean."  Verses  15,  16.  "  And  the  priest  shall  take  some  of  the 
log  of  oil,  and  pour  it  upon  the  palm  of  his  own  left  hand  :  and 
the  priest  shall  dip  his  right  finger  in  the  oil  that  is  in  his  left 
hand,  and  shall  sprinkle  of  the  oil  with  his  finger,  seven  times 
before  the  Lord."  In  these  texts  the  bird  and  hyssop  were  to  be 
dipped  (baptized J — the  leper  was  to  wash  (baptize J  himself, 
and  his  cloaths  ;  not  a  part  of  either,  but  the  whole  ;  not  with, 
but  in,  the  water,  i.  e.  by  dipping  each  in  it.  In  the  two  last 
verses  three  actions  are  described,  and  each  of  them  as  distinct 
from  the  other,  and  entirely  different :  1.  Pouring  of  the  oil  on 
the  hand.  2.  Then  dipping  (baptizing)  his  finger  in  the  oil.  3. 
Then  sprinkling'  the  oil  seven  times  before  the  Lord.  Will  any 
one  after  this,  pretend  that  pouring,  sprinkling,  and  dipping  are 
one  and  the  same  thing  ? 

The  Jewish  baptisms  of  which  he  speaks,  and  asks  if  they 
were  by  immersion,  are  called  bathing,  a  term  foreign  either 
from  pouring  or  sprinkling,  "  He  shall  bathe  himself  in  water," 
Lev.  xv.  5.  and  in  verse  7.  "  Shall  wash  his  cloaths,  and  bathe 
himself  in  water."  This  command  is  repeated  in  the  same 
words,  to  persons  in  different  circumstances  of  ceremonial 
uncleanness,  in  verses  11.  13.  21,  22.  2,7,  and  in  chap.  xvi.  26. 
28.  and  in  chap.  xvii.  15,  16.;  also  in  Num.  xix.  7,  8.  19. 
•Surely  a  man  will  not  he  deemed  "void  of  rnedrctv"  after 


let 

exhibiting  such  evidence  that  Jewish  baptisms  were  an  immci'; 
sion  in  water ;  nor  can  anything  better  express  it,  than  the  words 
dipping  and  bathing,  both  of  which  are  applied,  and  no  other, 
unto  them.  An  objection  may  be  raised  here  that  the  flesh  is 
said  to  be  cleansed  u  by  the  blood  of  bulls  and  goats,"  sprinkling 
the  unclean,  that  is,  the  leper,  and  that  therefore  sprinkling 
was  a  washing  from  spiritual  uncleanness.  To  this  it  may  be 
answered,  that  this  sprinkling  was  not  the  whole  cleansing,  but 
the  party  was  to  bathe  or  immerse  (baptize)  himself  in  water, 
which  was  a  finishing  of  the  ceremonial  rite,  "  For  an  unclean 
person  they  shall  take  the  ashes  of  the  burnt  hei4er  of  purification 
for  sin,"  Num*  xix.  18.  Verse  19.  "  And  the  clean  person  shall 
sprinkle  upon  the  unclean,  and  on  the  seventh  day  he  shall 
purify  himself,  and  wash  his  cloaths,  and  bathe  himself  in 
water ;  and  shall  be  clean."  I  hope  the  gentleman  is  now 
answered  to  his  satisfaction,  that  Jewish  baptisms  were  immer- 
sion. 

The  instance  he  produces  of  the  "  Pharisees  washing  (baptiz- 
ing) before  meals,"  does  not  prove  that  sprinkling  is  baptism, 
nor  yet  pouring,  since  it  is  such  a  pouring  as  buries  the  body 
beneath  it.  Those  passages  are  produced  to  raise  a  doubt  in 
the  reader,  that  the  pharisees  should  always  bathe  their  whole 
body  in  water  before  every  meal ;  and  the  inference  that  is 
wished  to  be  drawn  seems  to  be,  that  the  hands  only  art  intended, 
agreeably  to  that  text,  Mark  vii.  3.  "  For  the  Pharisees,  and 
all  the  Jews$  except  they  wash  their  hands  oft,  eat  not,  holding 
the  tradition  of  the  elders  ;"  and  that,  as  the  Pharisees  are  said 
to  baptize  when  they  come  from  market ;  whereas,  nothing 
more  is  intended  than  a  mere  washing  of  hands  :  so  they  infer, 
that  to  baptize  does  not  intend  an  immersion  of  the  whole  body. 
This  mistake  is  founded  on  the  supposition,  that  the  same  thing 
is  meant  in  both  texts  ;  whereas^  in  Mark  vii.  4.  where  they  are 
said  to  baptize  when  they  come  from  market ^  this  baptizing  was 
really  the  whole  body  $  for  this  they  did  when  they  returned, 
supposing  they  might  have  touched  some  unclean  thing,  and 
th  re  fore  did  bathe  the  whole  body  when  they  came  from 
market ;  but  only  baptized  or  washed  their  hands  before  they 
eat;  so  that  for  want  of  this  distinction  the  absuroity  exists,  and 
the  moment  the  distinction  is  made,  there  is  no  difficulty  in 
supposing  they  washed,  or  baptized  their  hands  always  before 
eating.  See  Gill's  exposition  of  this  text,  and  his  quotation  from 
jVIaimonides*  u  Washed  in  a  laver,  which  holds  forty  seahs  of 
water,  which  are  not  drawn,  every  defiled  man  dips  himself, 
except  a  profluvious  man,  and  in  it  they  dip  all  unclean  vessels, 
■is  cups,  pots,  and  brazen  vessels."  This  is  the  testimony  of  a 
Jewish  author  concerning  their  own  customs,  and  will  weigh 


185 

more  in  shewing  how  they  baptized,  than  the  mere  vague  opinions 
of  Poedobaptists. 

Baptizing  of  the  hands  before  eating,  is  surely  no  very  difficult 
thing  to  conceive  of,  and  that  washing  of  hands  is  performed  by 
a  dipping  of  them  in  water,  every  day's  experience  proves ;  yet 
even  if  it  were  by  pouring,  it  is  such  a  pouring  as  covers  over, 
or  immerses  the  hands,  and  may  well  be  called  a  baptizing  or 
overwhelming  in  water.  As  to  what  Mr.  E.  says,  that  dipping 
is  but  the  means,  and  washing,  or  baptizing,  the  end,  it  is  but 
a  mere  quibble  ;  because  the  dipping  is  the  baptizing,  and  the 
washing  a  mere  consequent  of  dipping  ;  and  when  washing  is 
called  baptizing,  it  is  only  so  called  as  it  pre-supposes  a  dipping 
or  overwhelming  in  order  to  a  washing  or  cleansing.  That  the 
hands  when  dipped  or  overwhelmed  in  a  bason,  in  order  to  wash 
them,  and  pouring  water  over  them  so  as  to  overwhelm  or  cover 
them,  is  a  baptizing  of  them,  will  not  be  disputed,  because  that 
in  both  cases  there  is  an  overwhelming,  and  therefore  a  baptism : 
but  how  this  can  serve  the  cause  of  sprinkling,  is  hard  to  say  ; 
for  it  is  not  pretended  that  they  sprinkle  so  as  to  cover  or  over- 
whelm the  body.  The  question  is,  did  the  Pharisees  in  washing 
(baptizing)  their  hands,  so  wash  them  as  to  have  every  part 
completely  covered  over  with  water,  whether  that  was  performed 
by  dipping  or  pouring  ?  If  they  did,  then  a  second  question 
follows,  which  is,  do  our  opponents  so  baptize,  so  as  to  over- 
whelm or  cover  the  whole  body  with  water  ?  If  they  do  not, 
then  they  do  not  baptize  in  the  same  sense  as  the  Pharisees 
baptized  their  hands.  Therefore*  were  we  willing  to  admit 
(which  is  not  admitted)  that  to  baptize  is  to  pour  j  yet,  as  the 
pouring  was  such  as  to  cover  the  whole  hand,  still  the  concession 
would  not  benefit  the  Poedobaptists  ;  because  they  do  not  so 
pour,  or  wash,  as  extends  to  the  whole  bodv  ;  but  this  the 
Pharisees  did  to  their  hands.  The  question, u  Did  the  Pharisees 
marvel,  that  our  Lord  did  not  baptize  himself  before  dinner," 
I  deem  an  impertinent  one ;  because  Mr.  E*  well  knew,  that 
the  baptizing  before  dinner  related  only  to  the  hands,  and  it  was 
that  which  occasioned  him  to  marvel  that  he  eat  without  washing 
his  hands  before  dinner,  (not  his  whole  person)  and  he  well 
knew  that  baptizing  of  the  body,  was  resorted  to  only  after 
coming  from  market,  or  from  among  a  great  concourse  of  people, 
when  they  supposed  some  ceremonial  defilement  might  have 
been  contracted. 

The  third  question  resorted  to  is,  whether  it  is  likely  that 
the  Jews  immersed  th  ir  cups,  pots,  brazen  vessels,  tables, 
and  beds  ?  There  can  be  no  difficulty  in  believing  that  all  of 
them  might  have  been  thus  immersed,  the  bed  excepted..  Yet 
even  this  objection  he  has  removed  himself,  by  admitting  that 


186 

the  beds  alluded  to,  were  a  kind  of  seats,  or  couches,  on  which 
they  lay  at  their  meals.  The  whole  objection  is  the  improbability. 
What,  is  it  not  likely  that  they  dipped  their  cups  and  pots  into 
the  water  ?  and  is  it  inadmissible  that  a  table,  or  bench,  should 
thus  be  immersed  ?  A  man  must  be  sorely  pinched  indeed, 
when  he  is  obliged  to  resort  to  such  preposterous  surmises.  But 
he  says,  "  no  creature  living  can  determine  how  they  were 
washed,  (baptized)  whether  by  sprinkling,  pouring,  or  dipping." 
All  he  means  to  say  by  this,  is,  that  there  were  different  ways 
of  washing  ;  yet  he  admits  they  were  so  washed  as  that  every 
part  of  them  had  the  water  applied.  What  a  miserable  defence 
would  this  be  of  sprinkling,  when  not  an  huudreth  part  of  the 
body  has  the  water  applied !  But  let  a  Jew  speak  of  their  customs 
on  this  head  :  "  A  bed  that  is  wholly  defiled,  if  he  dips  it,  part 
by  party  is  pure  ;  again,  if  he  dips  the  bed  in  it  (the  pool  of 
water)  although  its  feet  are  plunged  into  the  thick  clay,  it  is 
clean.  A  pillow  or  bolster  of  skin^  he  must  dip  them,  and  lift 
them  up  by  their  fringes."  I  will  only  add  here,  that  while  Mr* 
E.  has  endeavoured  to  convey  an  idea,  that  the  word  baptize 
may  mean  to  wash,  sprinkle,  or  pour  ;  yet  he  has  not  dared  to 
assert,  that  it  is  such  a  wetting,  sprinkling,  or  pouring,  as  was 
partial ;  but  admits  it  extended  over  the  whole  person  or  thing  ; 
that  being  the  case,  an  entire  wetting  is  baptism — nothing  short 
of  it  is  so  called :  but  if  there  must  be  an  entire  wetting  of  the 
body,  we  are  not  at  a  loss  to  know  how  our  Poedobaptist  friends 
would  perform  it,  if  reduced  to  the  necessity  j  they  would,  in- 
stead of  sprinkling,  resort  to  the  eligible  wayr  which  is  dipping 
the  person  under  the  water. 

By  the  circumstances  of  baptism,  which  he  next  proposes  to 
examine,  he  means  the  custom  of  resorting  to  rivers.  However 
he  is  disposed  to  undervalue  this  evidence  of  immersion,  yet 
he  cannot  but  confess,  that  the  resorting  to  rivers  does  counte- 
nance the  practice.  Yet  he  seems  disposed  to  weaken  this 
evidence,  by  affirming  that  there  were  instances  of  persons  being 
"  baptized  in  houses,  and  cities,  where  no  rivers  were — that 
there  was  no  place  for  change  of  garments — no  mention  made 
of  such  change,  though  in  two  other  instances  there  is  such 
mention  made,  as  of  Christ  laying  his  garments  off  when  he 
washed  his  disciples'  feet,  and  the  men  laying  down  their  gar- 
ments at  Saul's  feet — from  the  Greek  prepositions,  which,  he 
says,  are  indeterminate  as  to  their  sense."  That  the  jailor  was 
baptized  in  the  house,  is  not  true  ;  for  it  is  said,  he  brought 
them  into  the  house  after  his  baptism,  which  he  could  not  have 
done,  had  he  not  been  out  of  it  when  the  ordinance  was  per- 
formed :  *  And  when  he  had  brought  them  into  his  house" 
Acts  xvi.  34.     Neither  was  Lydia  baptized  in  her  house  ;  for, 


187  * 

after  her  baptism,  she  constrained  them  to  come  into  her  house, 
saying,  u  Come  into  my  house,  and  abide  there,  and  she  con- 
strained us,"  Acts  xvi.  15.  It  was  at  the  city  of  Philippi,  that 
both  Lydia  and  the  jailor  were  baptized.  In  verse  13,  we  learn, 
there  was  a  river,  by  the  side  of  which  certain  persons  resorted 
for  prayer,  and  it  was  there  the  Lord  opened  Lydia's  heart ; 
and  for  her  baptism  and  that  of  the  jailor,  here  was  a  suitable 
place,  and  no  doubt  they  were  baptized  therein.  It  is  therefore 
destitute  of  all  proof,  that  any  were  baptized  in  a  house  ;  and  if 
it  had  been  otherwise,  it  would  not  haye  been  against  immersion, 
as  the  use  of  cisterns  and  baths  were  common.  It  is  in  vain  to 
plead  this  as  a  presumption  in  favour  of  sprinkling. 

Nor  does  it  appear,  that  John  might  have  chosen  a  river  for 
the  sake  of  convenience,  if  immersion  was  not  necessary  ;  and 
that,  because  a  very  little  water  would  have  sprinkled  thousands, 
if  that  had  been  baptism?  and  it  would  have  been  madness  in 
him  to  put  the  people  to  the  great  inconvenience  of  attending  him 
to  the  wilderness,  if  the  ordinance  could  be  performed  at  their 
homes.  That  they  were  not  immersed  he  seems  to  think  likely, 
because  no  mention  is  made  of  their  putting  off  their  garments, 
and  he  thinks  there  were  no  accommodations  for  dressing  and 
undressing.  What  conveniences  there  were  for  that  purpose,  is 
hard  for  Mr.  E,  to  say  :  but,  surely,  if  we  are  at  liberty  to  draw 
conclusions.,  the  most  natural  would  be,  that  as  they  left  their 
houses  to  attend  John's  ministry  in  the  wilderness,  they  were 
careful  to  take  change  of  raiment,  provisions,  and  a  tent  to 
dwell  in ;  for  it  is  not  supposable,  they  would  abide  under  a 
scorching  sun  in  the  wilderness..  At  any  rate,  it  is  tire  work  of 
lyir.  E.  to  prove  they  had  no  such  conveniences, 

As  for  his  asking,  why  no  account  was  given  of  their  putting 
off  their  garments,  the  reason  is  very  plain,  because  they  went 
into  the  water  with  them  on,  (unless  he  thinks  they  went  m 
without  garments) ;  and  the  administration  of  the  ordinance 
Jiad  nothing  to  do  xvith  the  change  of  the  garment  any  way  j 
much  less.,  as  that  change  took  place  after  its  administration. 
He  is  quite  out  of  his  way,  when  he  adduces  the  instance  of 
Christ  laying  off  his  garment,  and  of  the  men  who  stoned 
Stephen,  laying  theirs  at  Saul's  feet;  because  these  are  net 
parallel  cases ;  for  there  is  no  change  of  apparel  made  mention 
of  in  either  of  them  ;  nor  yet  did  they  lay  off  all,  but  only  a  part 
of  their  garments,  "  their  upper  one"  Besides,  their  laying  off 
of  their  garments  was  significant,  and  was  necessary  to  perfect 
the  narrative,  without  which  the  narrator  could  not  transmit  to 
us  the  most  important  information  :  but  their  change  of  apparel 
was  no  way  connected  with  the  right  administration  of  that 
ordinance,  nor  was  the  relation  of  tha,t  needful  to  shew  what 


188 

was  done,  or  any  act  of  humility  or  virtue.  But  in  Christ 
uncovering  himself,  was  seen  the  assumption  of  servitude,  put- 
ting himself  lower  than  the  disciples,  and  setting  them  an  example ; 
and  the  men  laying  oft  their  upper  garments,  and  Saul's  taking 
charge  of  them,  was  to  shew  how  heartily  the  first  entered  into 
ihe  business  of  stoning  him,  and  how  intent  they  were  upon  it ; 
while  the  latter  discovered  the  willingness  to  Paul  to  be  an 
accessary-— the  pleasure  he  felt  in  seeing  it — and  his  hardness 
of  heart,  and  all  as  a  contrast  to  his  future  conversion. 

Mr.  E.  deals  not  only  disingenuously,  but  also  unjustly,  in 
his  remarks  on  Greek  prepositions  ;  for  he  says,  en  and  eis 
mean,  "  towards,  near,"  and  not  into;  and  that  apo  and  ek,  very 
often  signify  "from,"  and  not  out  of.  How  is  it,  if  the  instances 
are  so  abundant  as  he  here  insinuates,  that  he  has  only  furnished 
us  with  one,  John  xx.  4,  5.  ?  I  would  ask  him  whether  those 
prepositions  are  most  generally  used  in  the  sense  he  means,  or 
whether  they  are  not  used  generally  to  signify  into,  and  out  oft 
and  whether  the  instances  are  not  exceedingly  rare  of  their  being 
used  in  the  sense  he  speaks  of?  The  truth  is,  that  where  these 
prepositions  occur  in  the  sense  he  speaks,  the  instances  are  very 
iew,  perhaps  not  one  to  twentv  times  they  occur  in  the  other 
sense  ;  so  that  instead  of  its  being  the  current  sense  of  the  New 
Testament,  it  is  entirely  the  reverse, 

I  will  now  demonstrate,  that  if  the  words  which  are  inter- 
preted into,  and  out  of,  only  meant  "near,"  or  M  from,"  the 
word  of  God  would  be  unintelligible  and  absurd.  Matth.  viii.  5. 
a  Jesus  entered  into  Capernaum."  Did  he  not  go  in  it  ?  was  he 
only  at  the  walls?  Matth-  ix.  1.  ■"  He  entered  into  a  ship."  Did 
he  only  go  by  or  near  it?  Matth.  xxiv.  38.  "  The  day  that  Noah 
entered  into  the  Ark."  Was  Noah  onlv  near,  or  by  the  Ark  ? 
Luke  viii.  34.  "  The  devils  entered  into  the  swine  :"  but  if 
what  Mr.  E,  says  is  true,  they  were  only  near  them.  "  The 
^fherd  ran  violently  down  a  steep  place,  into  the  lake,  and  were 
choaked  :"  but  how  were  they  choaked  in  the  lake,  if  they  only 
went  by  the  side  of  it  I  John  xviii.  33.  4t  Pilate  entered  into  the 
judgment  hall."  Was  he  only  by  the  side  of  it?  Rom.  v.  12. 
"  Sin  entered  into  the  world."  Did  sin  only  come  to  the  side  of 
the  earth,  or  near  it  ?  Yea,  by  that  rule  of  interpretation  *  Christ 
has  not  gone  to  the  right  hand  of  his  Father  :  w  For  Christ  has 
not  entered  into  the  holy  places  made  with  hands  ;  but  into 
heaven  itself,"  Heb.  ix.  24.  Is  it,  indeed,  true  that  this  word 
**  into"  means  only  by  f  then  Christ  is  not  in  heaven.  The 
reader  will  here  see  what  an  awful  business  Mr.  E.  makes  of  it; 
for  these  words  u  into,"  are  the  en,  and  eis,  which  he  sa\  s  mean 
7\car,  or  by.  In  like  manner  apo,  ek,  or  out  of,  if  they  m. an 
"from"  fhen  there  textfe  that  follow  are  absurd.    Matth.  ii.  6* 


189 

•;  Anci  thou,  Bethlehem,  in  the  land  of  Judea,  oat  ofthzz  shall 
come  a  governor."  Did  Christ  come  only  from  the  side  of 
Bethlehem  ?  Matth.  xii.  34.  "  Out  of  the  abundance  of  the 
heart  the  mouth  speaketh."  Are  words  only  from  the  side  of,  or 
by,  the  heart  ?  James  iii.  10.  "  Out  of  the  same  mouth  pro- 
ceeded blessing  and  cursing.''  Do  words  only  come  from  the 
side  of  the  mouth  ?  Mark  v.  8.  "  For  he  said  unto  him,  come 
atti  of  the  man,  thou  unclean  spirit :"  but  the  devil  must  only 
have  been  by  him,  and  net  in  him,  if  what  Mr.  E.  says  is  true. 
You  see,  my  brethren,  how  ridiculous  is  the  interpretation  of 
this  man,  when  he  would  make  you  believe  that  "  oat  of"  only 
intends  "  from." 

But  why  do  Poedobaptists  alter  the  translation  ?  Can*they  not 
defend  their  system  without  doing  violence  to  the  word  of  God? 
Surely  they  may  be  content  with  a  translation  that  has  been  done 
not  bij  Baptists,  but  by  the  advocates  for  infant  sprinkling ! 
That  it  may  appear,  that  coming  to  the  side  of  the  water,  without 
going  into  it,  was  not  intended  by  the  words,  it  is  said,  "  They 
came  '  to'  a  certain  water  ;"  then  it  is  immediately  added,  "They 
went  "  down  into"  it ;  but  if  epi  and  eis,  in  both  places,  mean 
only  to  the  side  of  the  water,  it  would  be  foolishness  ;  for  then 
it  would  stand  thus :  4  They  came  unto  a  certain  water,  and  they 
went  to  a  certain  water.'  The  folly  of  which  will  be  sufficiently 
manifested,  by  reading  the  text  itself;  Acts  viii.  36.  "They 

.  "  And  they  went  down 
to?  and  '  into'*  means  the 
same,  then  they  came  to  it,  and  went  to  it,  which  is  tautology 
and  nonsense. 

That  the  circumstance  of  administering  this  ordinance  in 
rivers,  is  a  strong  presumption  in  favour  of  immersion,  is 
strengthened  by  a  great  variety  of  corroborating  texts  ;  particu- 
larly where  it  is  compared  to  a  burial,  as  it  is  expressive  of  Chrisrs 
sufferings — of  the  passage  of  Israel  through  the  sea,  and  the 
deliverance  of  Noah  in  the  Ark  ;  all  which  cannot  be  expressed 
by  any  thing  else  than  an  immersion  in  water.  In  one  passage, 
the  reason  assigned  for  going  to  a  river  was,  because  there  was 
much  zvater  there  ;  "  John  also  was  baptizing  in  Enon,  near  to 
Salim,  because  there  was  viuch  water  there,"  John  iii.  23.  Our 
opponents  feel  the  force  of  this  passage,  and  have  attempted  to 
evade  it,  by  saying,  "  in  the  original  it  is  many  waters,"  that  is., 
many  little  streams.  This  will  avail  them  nothing  ;  for  we  have 
as  much  right  to  assert  they  were  many  large  streams,  as  they 
have  to  call  them  little  ones  :  but  manv  waters,  in  the  scripture 
,ense,  signifies  a  great  bodv  of  it,  and  with  reference  to  the  noise 
of  waters  falling  in  cataracts,  is  compared  the  voice  of  God , 
Rom.  i.  15,  t;  And  his  voice  as  the  sound  of  many  waters'1' 

Bb 


190 

'How  mean,  and  low,  would  this  comparison  be,  to  compare  the 
voice  of  God  to  many  little  rivulets,  whose  murmurings  can 
scarcely  be  heard  !  but  how  expressive  is  the  figure,  when  the 
stunning  noise  occasioned  by  the  foil  of  rivers,  and  which  can  be 
heard  at  the  distance  of  many  miles,  is  made  the  emblem  of 
God's  majestic  voice  !  "  I  will  show  unto  thee  the  judgment  of 
the  great  whore  that  sitteth  on  many  waters,"  Rev.  xvii.  1. 
Here  many  nations  are  called  many  waters.  Verse  15.  a  And  he 
saith  unto  me,  the  waters  which  thou  sawest,  where  the  whore 
sitteth,  are  people,  and  multitudes,  and  nations,  and  tongues?" 
Would  not  the  image  be  mean  indeed,  if  many  waters  meant 
only  little  rivulets  ?  I  ask  then,  why  did  the  inspired  writer 
assign  as  a  reason  for  John's  going  to  Salim,  'because  there 
was  much  water  there,'  if  much  water  was  not  necessary  to 
baptism,  or  if  sprinkling  would  have  done  ?  Their  going  into 
the  water,  and  coming  up  out  of  the  water,  are  unmeaning 
things,  if  immersion  is  not  intended  ;  for  no  just  reasons  can 
be  assigned  that  they  should  .go  in  at  all,  if  an  immersion  was 
not  necessary. 

After  all  their  twistings  and  turnings,  the  T?cedobaptists  must 
know,  that  these  are  mere  evasions  ;  and  that  when,  like  Mr. 
E.,  they  say  it  cannot  be  known  from  their  going  down  into  the 
water,  that  they  were  immersed ;  at  the  same  time,  their  inward 
conviction  is  to  the  reverse.  The  effrontery  of  Mr.  Edwards 
is  unparalleled,  when  he  says,  "  neither  the  term  baptize,  nor 
the  circumstances  of  baptism,  determine  anything  about  the 
mode."  It  would  seem  from  him,  that  the  scriptures  were, 
deficient  to  direct  in  this  ordinance,  and  that  we  are  left  wholly 
to  conjecture  what  is  our  duty  :  neither  the  baptism  of  Christ 
—that  of  the  eunuch — of  those  baptized  in  Enon~-going  into, 
and  coming  up  out  of  the  water ;  all,  all  these  are  nothing  to 
him — they  weigh  not  any  thing  to  determine  our  conduct. 
And  what  seems  as  strange  as  any  thing  else,  is,  that  though  he 
has  not  pretended,  in  his  whole  book,  to  say  that  baptism  was  a 
partial  washing  ;  but  in  more  than  one  place,  very  strongly 
suggested  it  was  an  entire  or  universal  wetting  (though  he 
contended  it  was  not  always  done  by  dipping),  that  he  could  do 
no  less  than  admit,  that  it  seemed  to  be  a  strong  presumption, 
that  this  attendance  at  rivers  was  to  perform  this  general  wetting 
with  more  convenience. 

Mr.  E.now  proceeds  to  what  he  terms  "  the  Baptist  allusion51 
in  favour  of  immersion,  Rom.  vi.  4.  "  Therefore  we  are  buried 
with  him,  by  baptism  into  death."  On  this  text  he  argues,  that 
if  it  is  an  allusion  to  the  mode  of  baptism,  the  Baptists  must 
certainly  be  wrong,  and  ail  others,  though  he  thinks  the  papists 
come  the  nearest  to  truth.     He  observes,  that  on  our  principles 


191 

the  mode  must  be  threefold,  a  baptism  "  into  Christ — into  his* 
death — into  his  burial ;"  that  his  life  must  allude  to  the  mode, 
so  also  must  his  death  and  his  burial :  from  which  he  observes, 
44  The  papists  in  using  salt,  spittle,  and  oil  in  baptism,  prefigure 
his  life  ;  the  church  of  England  uses  the  cross  to  prefigure  his 
crucifixion,  and  the  Baptists  immersion,  to  signify  his  burial ;  and 
he  infers  that  all  three  together  would  make  the  allusion  complete." 
As  to  what  the  chureh  of  England  and  the  papists  do  in  this,  we 
are  not  concerned ;  nor  do  we  know,  or  care,  whether  these  were 
the  reasons  that  induced  them  thus  to  act,  or  not :  but  it  is  very 
easy  to  see,  that  Mr.  E.  does  not  know  how  to  evade  the  force 
of  this  passage,  and  that  his  whole  drift  is  to  laugh  this  text  out 
of  countenance*  If  the  allusion  is  simply  to  the  death  .and  burial 
of  Christ,  and  baptism  does  represent  this  in  the  text,  he  could 
not  but  perceive  that  sprinkling  was  ruined,  it  not  answering  to 
a  burial.  But  what  was  to  be  done  in  this  case  ?  Nothing  could 
now  be  done  but  to  disfigure  the  passage,  by  making  it  say  what 
it  does  not;  that  is,  that  we  are  baptized  into  the  u  life  of  Christ" 
— into  the  "  death  of  Christ" — into  the  "burial  of  Christ ;"  and 
eo  make  three  distinct  allusions  in  the  text,  instead  of  one* 
There  is  not  in  the  passage  any  thing  said  about  baptizing  into 
the  life  of  Christ,  nor  yet  into  his  burial.  These  were  his  mere 
assertions,  destitute  of  all  foundation,  and  were  as  wanton  an 
abuse  of  the  scriptures  as  he  could  well  be  guilty  of.  All  that 
the  text  says,  is,  that  we  are  baptized  into  his  death.  The 
reasoning  of  the  apostle  is,  that  Christ  in  his  death  represented 
his  people,  and  that  they  were  considered  present  in  Christ ;  so 
•that  when  he  was  crucified,  verse  6,  they  were  viewed  as  crucified 
— when  he  was  dead,  they  were  so  in  him — when  he  was  buried 
and  rose,  they  were  also  buried  and  rose  with  him  :  now,  says 
he,  he  that  is  dead  is  freed  from  sin  ;  and  on  this  is  founded  the 
question  in  the  2d  verse,  "  how  shall  we  that  are  dead  to  sin, 
live  any  longer  therein  ?"  The  whole  meaning  of  the  passage 
then  is  this  :  c  Brethren,  you  have  been  baptized  into  Christ ; 
that  is,  you  have  put  on  Christ  in  a  profession,  whereby  vou 
declare  your  union  with  him  ;  then  remember  that  you  in  this 
public  act  was  baptized  into  his  death,  (you  were  then  consider- 
ed dead  to  the  world,  as  he  was  actually  when  he  left  the 
world)  and  as  an  expression  of  your  deadness  to  the  world  and 
sin  ;  and,  as  Christ  after  his  death  was  buried  in  the  tomb,  of 
which  his  baptism  was  a  figure  ;  so  you  also,  to  signify  your 
death  to  the  world  and  sin,  have  been  buried  in  baptism,  in 
which  you  have  fellowship  with  Christ  in  his  death  and  burial." 
Indeed,  the  inference  is  a  very  natural  one  ;  "  You  have  been 
baptized  into  Christ's  death,  and  if  it  is  not  fit  a  dead  man  should 
be  on  the  earth  and  concerned  about  human  affairs  an4  folliev 


192 

but  is  to  be  buried  out  of  sight,  as  one  that  has  nothing  to  do  witfl 
£hese  things  ,  so  you,  as  "  dead"  men,  have  been  u  buried"  with 
him  by  baptism,  hereby  signifying  your  unconeernedness  about 
human  affairs."  There  is  then  but  one  allusion  in  the  text ;  and 
that  is,  to  the  burying  of  one  that  is  dead :  this  burying  is  said 
to  be  done  in  baptism,-  and  from  hence  it  is  readily  seen,  that 
baptism  is  a  covering  over  in  water,  as  a  dead  man  is  covered 
over  in  the  earth  ;  and  as  Christ  was  buried  in  Joseph's  tomb, 
so  believers  were  said  to  be  buried  with  him  by  baptism,  signi- 
fying their  union  with  him,  and  fellowship  therein.  What  then 
becomes  of  sprinkling  ?  Is  it  a  burial  ?  That  their  baptism  was 
designed  to  represent  their  fellowship  with  him  not  in  his  life, 
but  in  his  death  and  resurrection,  it  is  added,  "  That  like  as 
Christ  was  raised  from  the  dead  by  the  glory  of  the  Father, 
even  so  we  also  should  walk  in  newness  of  life."  It  means,  as 
a  dead  man  is  buried,  in  consequence  of  death,  so  have  you, 
being  dead  as  to  the  old  man  which  has  been  crucified,  been 
buried  in  baptism  :  but  as  Christ  rose  from  the  dead,  so  have 
you  risen  from  the  grave  of  sin,  and  as  in  baptism  you  were 
buried,  and  afterward  rose  out  of  your  watery  grave,  all  which 
is  expressive  of  Christ's  burial  and  resurrection  ;  so  also  is  it, 
of  your  own  death  to  sin,  and  resurrection  with  him  to  newness 
of  life; 

Mr.  E.' contends,  that  asjln  verse  5,  a  planting  in  the  likeness 
of  his  death  is  mentioned,  this  must  be  baptism  also,  if  our  ideas 
of  the  text  are  true ;  and  then  it  would  make  in  favour  of 
sprinkling,  rather  than  immersion  ;  for  as  a  tree  planted  is  not 
entirely  covered  with  the  earth,  he  thinks,  this  will  make  nothing 
in  favour  of  immersion,  but  the  contrary.  This  argument  is 
certainly  an  ill  chosen  one  for  him,  because  he  ought  to  remem- 
ber that  other  things  besides  trees  may  be  planted  ;  and  that 
seeds  of  different  sorts  may  as  readily  be  planted  as  trees.  Is 
the  planting  here  expressive  of  baptism,  and  does  this  planting 
refer  to  the  death  of  Christ  ?  Then  Christ  in  his  death  and 
burial  is  not  compared  to  a  tree  planted  in  the  earth  which  is 
not  entirely  covered ;  but  to  a  grain  of  corn  cast  into  the  ground, 
and  buried  in  it,  which  is  the  cause  of  its  vegetating.  See  John 
xii.  24.  "  Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  you,  except  a  corn  of  wheat 
fall  into  the  ground  and  die,  it  abicleth  alone  ;  but  if  it  die,  it 
bringeth  forth  much  fruit."  This  corn  of  wheat  (Christ)  falls 
into  the  ground,  not  on  it.  Is  then,  the  burial  of  Christ  intended 
by  this  ?  If  so,  does  it  not  represent  immersion,  and  immersion 
onlv  ?  If  is  truly  diverting  to  hear  Mr.  E.  decide  the  controversy 
in  favour  of  the  planters,  (or  sprinklers)  as  he  calls  them :  surely 
Christ's  burial  in  the  heart  of  the  earth  will  make  nothing  m 
favour  of  such  a  practice- 


1&> 

We  shall  now  attend  to  what  he  calls  the  Pcedobaptist  allusion  t 
and,  if  I  am  not  mistaken,  we  shall  find  it  as  unfavourable  to  his 
scheme  as  an}7  thing  he  has  advanced.  1  am  indeed  surprised, 
that  as  he  introduces  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost  into  the 
controversy,- he  did  not  use  it  as  some  of  his  brethren  have  done 
of  late  •  that  is,  to  insist  upon  it,  that  when  believers  are  said  to' 
be  buried  with  Christ  in  baptism,  that  rvater  baptism  was  not 
intended,  but  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  by  that  means 
at  once  rid  themselves  of  the  two  texts  that  gave  Mr.  E.  so 
much  trouble.  He  says,  that  "  the  two  are  called  by  the  same 
name ;"  i.  e.  the  baptism  of  the  Spirit,  and  rvater  baptism :  True. 
"  That  the  mode  of  communicating  the  grace  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
to  the  soul,  and  that  of  applying  baptismal  water  to  the  body, 
are  viewed  as  corresponding  with  each  other."  This  is  partly 
true,  and  partly  false  :  True,  as  the  baptism  of  the  Spirit  is  an 
emblem  of  water  baptism  ;  but  false,  when  the  baptism  of  the 
Spirit  is  confounded  with  regeneration.  Our  opponents  say 
that  baptism  is  an  Outward  sign  of  inward  spiritual  grace  ;  and 
our  author  makes  this  spiritual  grace  to  be  the  baptism  of  the 
Holy  Ghost ;  but  if  so,'  John  baptized  persons  who  had  it  not, 
but  speaks  of  it  as  a  thing  to  come  ;  so  that  it  seems,  baptism 
was  not  administered  to  signify  that  the  person  had  been  bap- 
tized with  the  Holy  Ghost.  "  I  indeed  baptize  you  with  water 
— he  shall  baptize  you  with  the  Holy  Ghos\  and  with  fire," 
Matth.  iii.  11.  It  is  unparalleled  stupidity,  indeed,  to  speak 
of  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost  and  regeneration,  as  one  and 
the  same  thing ;  when  they  are  as  wide  apart  as  the  pol(js« 
Millions  have  been  regenerated,  or  born  of  the  Spirit,  who  never 
were  baptized  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  The  first  work  is  done  by  the 
Spirit  to  prepare  the  elect  for  fellowship  with  God  here,  and 
the  enjoyment  of  him  hereafter  ;  the  other  was  granted  to  the 
apostles,  to  fit  them  for  the  ministry- — to  work  miracles,  and 
speak  with  tongues,  for  the  confirmation  of  the  gospel.  It  is 
manifest,  that  John  speaks  of  the  baptism  of  the  Holv  Ghost  as 
a  thing  that  had  never  yet  taken  place,  but  as  something  to  be 
done  in  future  ;  "'  He  (Christ)  shall  baptize  you  with  the  Holy 
Ghost  and  with  fire,"  Matth.  iii.  11.  So  also  Jesus  spoke, 
Luke  xxiv.  49.  "  Behold,  I  send  the  promise  of  my  Father  upon 
you ;  but  tarry  ye  in  the  city  of  Jerusalem  until  ye  be  endowed 
with  power  from  on  high."     See  also  Acts  i.  5. 

Now,  if  no  man  is  regenerated,  but  he  that  has  been  baptized 
with  the  Holy  Ghost,  then  it  follows,  that  none  were  renewed 
persons  before  John's  time — that  true  religion  never  existed 
until  after  the  resurrection  of  Christ,  (for  the  baptism  of  the 
Spirit  was  never  given  until  after  Christ  rose  from  the  dead). 
Yea,  on  such  principles  it  would  appear  that  the  apostles  were 


f94 

not  renewed  persons,  until  after  Christ  rose  from  the  dead.. 
But  are  any  disposed  to  receive  such  monstrous  things  ?  Sec 
John  vii.  39.  "  But  this  spake  he  of  the  Spirit,  which  they  that 
believe  on  him  should  receive:  for  the  Holy  Ghost  was  not  yet 
given ;  because  that  Jesus  was  not  yet  glorified,"  John  xiv.  26. 
"  But  the  Comforter,  which  is  the  Holy  Ghost,  whom  the  Father 
■will  send  in  my  name,  lie  shall  teach  you  all  things,  and  bring 
all  things  to  your  remembrance."  Now  let  me  ask,  What  was 
this  Spirit  that  had  not  yet  fallen  upon  them  ?  and  what  the 
Comforter  that  had  not  come,  and  that  because  Jesus  was  not 
glorified?  Was  it  the  regenerating  operations  of  the  Spirit,  and 
that  one  and  the  same  thing  with  the  baptism  of  the  Spirit  ?  If 
so,  the  Holy  Ghost  had  not  come  until  after  Christ's  resurrection 
— all  before  that  period  were  unrenewed  men,  and  that  even  up 
to  Adam's  time,  and  all  that  died  in  that  state  were  not  saved, 
unless  they  were  saved  in  their  sins  !  There  is  no  way  of  getting 
out  of  all  this,  but  to  acknowledge,  that  the  baptism  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  consisted  of  gifts,  and  not  grace  ;  and  that  it  was  peculiar 
to  the  times  of  the  first  introduction  of  the  gospel,  for  its  con- 
firmation, and  ceased  with  the  apostles  ;  because  speaking  with 
tongues,  and  working  miracles  did  cease  with  them.  Besides, 
Paul  asks,  "  Received  ye  the  Holy  Ghost  since  ye  bcHeved?" 
Acts  xix*  2.  Here  the  receiving  the  Spirit  is  after  believing  ; 
But  can  an  unregenerated  man  exercise  faith  ? 

Well  then,  all  Mr.  E.'s  fine  Pcedobaptist  allusion  is  at  once 
spoiled,  and  it  is  no  allusion  at  all.  His  wish  was  to  make  water 
baptism  a  sign  of  a  baptism  within~-then,  to  make  that  inward 
baptism  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost ;  and  then,  thinking  he 
could  make  it  appear  that  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost  was 
sprinkling,  he  could  have  a  good  Pcedobaptist  allusion  :  but 
how  he  could  call  it  a  Pcedobaptist  allusion  is  wonderful,  unless 
he  means  to  make  it  appear,  that  all  infants  are  baptized  with 
the  Holy  Spirit,  and  are  to  be  baptized  with  water  as  an  evidence 
of  it.  Had  he  indeed  said  it  was  a  good  Baptist  allusion,  he 
would  have  been  about  half  right. 

Mr.  E*  seems  to  be  in  raptures  with  half  a  dozen  texts  of 
scripture,  (were  they  in  his  favour  well  he  might)  and  says  with 
great  flourish  and  parade,  now  I'll  bring  my  '  lexicon',  "  a  lexi- 
con worth  more  than  five  hundred."  This  word  "  lexicon" 
seems  to  have  haunted  him  like  a  ghost ;  he  cannot  yet  forget 
Booth's  lexicographers.  But,  pray  sir,  what  has  put  you  in 
such  a  good  humour  ?  I  think  I  hear  you  say,  Good  humour  ! 
Reason  enough  I  have  for  it.  There  are  six,  no  less  than  six 
scriptures,  and  all,  all  of  them  for  infant  baptism  !  May  not  a 
Pcedobaptist  be  merry  indeed,  when  he  can  bring  scripture  for 
fantizing  ?  Well,  sir,  let  us  have  them.    Here  are  the  scriptures 


195 

that  will  prove  that  rantizing,  or  sprinkling,  rs  baptism.  The 
baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost  is  thus  described  :  Acts  xi.  33.  To 
shed  forth.  Acts  i.  5.  To  come  upon.  Acts  xi.  15.  To  fall  upon. 
Acts  ii.  17.  and  x.  45.  To  pour  out.  Well,  sir,  and  what  have 
you  gained  by  all  this  ?  Was  this  Spirit  shed  forth  and  pourecj. 
out  only  in  drops  like  rain  ?  No.  Did  it  fall  upon,  and  come  on 
them,  only  so  as  to  give  them  a  sprinkling  of  it  ?  You  seem,  sir, 
to  fancy  the  Holy  Ghost  coming  on  the  apostles  like  a  little 
stream,  and  running  down  one  side  of  them,  leaving  the  other 
side  untouched  ;  so  mightily  in  love  are  you  with  that  beautiful 
metaphor  of  yours,  when  you  had  the  Jew  baptizing  his  "  hands 
at  a  cock]'  that  now  to  be  sure  the  Spirit  must  descend  on  the 
apostles  in  the  same  way.  Tell  us,  Mr.  Edwards,  was  there  no 
more  of  the  Spirit  shed  or  poured  forth  on  the  apostles  than 
vou  would  pour  on  an  infant's  face  ?  Come,  sir,  do  not  start  at 
die  question,  for  you  call  this  the  Pcsdobaptist  allusion.  If  sir, 
you  are  not  too  much  offended  with  my  freedom,  I  will  under- 
take to  find  you  a  measure  to  ascertain  the  quantity  :  it  was  no 
less  than  what  filled  all  the  house*  Query,  Do  Pcedobaptists 
baptize  in  a  house  full  of  water  P  "  And  suddenly  there  came  a 
sound  from  heaven,  as  of  a  rushing  mighty  wind,  and  it  filled 
■all  the  house  where  they  were  sitting,"  Acts  iL  2.  Here,  then, 
we  have  the  quantum  :  the  Holy  Ghost  by  his  influence  fell  on 
them  so  as  that  the  whole  house  was  filled  ;  and  heing  therein, 
they  were  completely  buried,  overwhelmed,  immersed  in  thaf 
•sacred  influence.  But  Mr.  E.  denies  this,  he  says  it  was  mere 
sound  that  filled  the  house,  a  mere  echo  ;  but  this  is  not  true  ; 
it  is  not  said,  "  a  mighty  wind — a  sound,"  filled  the  house  ;  but 
the  Holy  Ghost;  who,  as  a  sound,  like  a  mighty  wind,  he  in  his 
coming  rushed  like  the  xmndior  its  swiftness,  and  sounded  like 
a  mighty  wind  that  creates  dread  in  those  that  hear  its  roar. 
Take  notice,  brethren,  it  was  not  a  wind,  a  mighty  rushing 
wind  ;  but  "  as'*  one— some  thing  that  resembled  it  in  the  noise 
and  swiftness  of  its  coming.  Mr.  E.  cannot  bear  to  think  that 
the  baptism  of  the  Spirit  was  something  outward,  as  well  as 
inward ;  but  wishes  to  make  it  altogether  an  inward  thing  ;  and 
that,  with  a  view  to  avoid  all  the  consequences  that  would  arise 
from  the  house  being  filled.  But  the  very  words  he  quoted, 
"■  shedding  forth  "  "  pouring  out?'  fully  imply  the  very  thing 
he  wishes  to  avoid.  But  to  leave  you  without  any  doubt,  that 
that  which  filled  the  house  was  the  influence  of  the  Spirit,  and 
not  a  mere  "  echo,"  or  a  "  rushing  wind,"  as  he  affirms,  I  now 
produce  this  following  text,  with  reference  to  the  baptism  of  the 
Holy  Ghost ;  where,  instead  of  its  being  an  inward  thing  alto- 
gether, it  is  said  expressly  to  fall  "  upon," — take  notice,  u  fall 
upon"  the  parties  ;  and  it  is.  further  said,  in  that  text,  it  fell  just 


196 

as  it  did  on  the  apostles  at  the  first.  ¥  And  as  I  began  to  speak, 
the  Holy  Ghost  fell  on  them,  as  on  us  at  the  beginning,"  Acts 
xi.  15. 

Are  you  pleased,  sir,  ^vith  your  Pcedobaptist  allusion  ?  Do 
not,  sir,  bring  the  baptism  of  the  Spirit  to  justify  sprinkling 
after  this  ;  but  if  you  will  have  this  to  be  the  pattern,  come  up 
to  it  fully,  and  do  not  do  it  by  halves,  or  rather  by  an  hundreth 
part  only.  You  have  told  us,  sir,  that  pouring  is  baptism  :  but 
here  you  have  a  full  view  of  what  kind  of  a  pouring  is  so  deno- 
minated ;  not  one  that  partially  wets,  but  that  which  wholly 
overwhelms,  and  that  literally  buries  the  subject.  If  you  choose 
to  place  your  candidates  in  a  bath,  or  room,  and  then  pour  water 
on  them  in  the  name  of  the  sacred  Three,  until  they  are  over- 
whelmed or  buried  therein,  as  the  apostles  were  at  the  day  of 
Pentecost ;  we  admit  that  such  a  pouring  is  indeed  baptism,  but 
still  we  must  insist  upon  it,  that  you  despise  the  authority  of 
Christ.  And.  certain  we  are,  that  if  such  a  pouring  only  as 
overwhelms,  is  at  all  a  baptism,  and  our  opponents  must  practise 
it  thus,  we  should  soon  see  them  admire  the  Baptist  method  of 
dipping  the  party,  and  we  should  hear  no  more  about  baptizing 
by  pouring.  I  insist  the  more  on  this  remark,  because  I  have 
.observed,  that  in  ail  the  writings  of  Pcedobaptists,  while  they 
have  laboured  much  to  prove  that  to  wash  and  to  pour  is  called 
baptizing  :  yet  not  one  of  them  has  pretended  to  affirm,  it  was 
not  such  a  washing  and  pouring  as  covered  the  subject  entirely. 
Now  were  we  to  grant  that  is  .its.  meaning,  yet,  after  all,  they 
have  done  nothing,  unless  they  prove  that  a  partial  wetting,  or 
washing,  is  called  baptism. 

The  concluding  remarks  of  Mr.  E.are,  4hat  "  baptizo  means 
washing  only,  but  not  any  mode  of  washing  :  it  means  neither 
dipping,  pouring  nor  sprinkling ;  for  these  are  only  different 
ways  of  washing.'*'  The  reader  will  not  lose  sight  of  this,  that 
he  has  not  condescended  on  being  sufficiently  explicit,  in  letting 
us  know  what  he  means  by  washing,  whether  it  is  such  an  one 
as  extends  to  every  part  of  the  subject,  or  whether  it  is  partial* 
Will  he  say  a  garment  is  washed  that  has  not  been  wet  all  over  j 
or  is  it  consistent  to  say  a  garment  is  washed,  when  in  reality 
only  a  part  of  it  has  been  so  served  ?  I  imagine  that  our  Poedo- 
baptists  would  mightily  complain  were  their  sentiment  of 
washing  reduced  to  practice  in  civil  life,  and  our  reverend  clergy 
appear  in  public  with  their  linen  only  sprinkled.  We  hope  the 
ladies  will  avail  themselves  of  this  exposition  ;  for,  as  gentlemen 
of  the  cloth  roundly  assert  thai:  sprinkling  is  good  washing,  how 
comfortably  might  the  tender  sex  get  through  the  business  of 
cleansing  apparel,  and  especially  theirs ;  and  we  should  not  hear 
*bem  complain  of  chafing  their  hands  until  the  blood  was  weeping 


197 

through  the  skin.  But,  gentlemen,  let  us  propose  to  you  a  question. 
You  are  called  upon  to  administer  baptism  ;  this  you  say  means, 
to  wash,  neither  have  you  pretended  that  it  is  a  partial  washing: 
you  proceed,  and  take  a  little  water  in  your  hand  and  apply  it  to 
the  face  of  the  subject,  and  immediately  add,  I  wash  thee — I 
baptize  thee.  Did  you  -wash  that  child,  or  only  a  part  of  the 
child  $  If  the  latter,  which  is  certainly  the  case,  did  you  not  in 
this  instance  speak  false  ?  Yea,  and  did  you  not  do  ;t  in  the  name 
of  the  Lord,  and  in  his  very  house,  and,  what  is  more  awful, 
declaring  it  was  by  his  authority  you  -did  so  I  Now,  to  what 
purpose  is  it  for  our  opponents  to  be  repeating,  44  baptism 
signifies  to  wash — pouring  is  called  baptism,"  when  at  the  same 
time  they  dare  not  deny,  that  it  -is  only  such  a  washing  as 
embraces  the  whole  of  the  subject,  and  such  a  pouring  as  com- 
pletely overwhelms  the  party;  and  when  in  their  pretended 
baptizing,  thev  neither  conform  to  the  one,  nor  the  other  ? 

Mr.  E.  is  indeed  right,  when  he  admits  thaf^  remitting  is  as 
different  from  baptizing,  as  sprinkling  is  from  iv ashing  ;'  there 
is  just  such  a  difference,  for  as  a  garment  is  not  washed  that  is 
only  sprinkled,  so  neither  is  a  man  baptized,  that  has  only  been 
lantized,  or  sprinkled.  But  he  adds,  "  The  word  baptism  is 
used  in  scripture,  where  pouring  is  evidently  intended  ;  while 
it  cannot  be  proved  that  it  is  ever  used,  where  immersion  is 
intended."  It  is  very  remarkable,  that  Mr.  E.  has  never,  in 
his  whole  book,  attempted  to  prove  that  sprinkling  is  called 
baptism,  and  yet  here  he  has  the  effrontery  to  declare  it  is 
manifestly  used  in  scripture  in  that  sense ;  I  would  recommend 
the  reader  to  go  over  his  book  carefully  again,  and  see  if  this  is 
not  the  case.  He  does  give  a  hint,  and  but, one,  wrhen  he  savs 
-the  leper  was  cleansed  with  the  sprinkling  of  the  ashes  of  an 
heifer,  and  when  he  makes  the  apostle  to  the  Hebrews  call  this 
one  of  the  u  divers  wrashmgs,  or  baptizings  :"  but  then  the  leper 
had  to  wrash  his  cloaths,  and  his  flesh,  after  this  sprinkling, 
before  he  could  be  clean ;  and  it  was  this  washing,  and  not  the 
sprinkling,  the  apostle  calls  one  of  the  Jewish  baptisms  :  u  And 
he  shall  wrash  his. cloaths,  also  he  shall  wash  his  flesh  in  watery 
(not  with  water)  M  and  he  shall  be  clean,"  Lev.  xiv.  9.  Is  it  not, 
then,  the  most  barefaced  wickedness  in  him,  to  say  sprinkling  i , 
manifestly  called  baptism  ?  Neither  has  he  brought  but  cne  text 
to  prove  that  pouring  is  called  baptism,  and  that  cne  is  the 
baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost ;  yet  you  have  seen  that  it  was  such 
a  pouring  as  filled  the  house  m  which  the  apostles  were,  and  in 
vvhich  they  were  truly  immersed,  and  not  merely  sprinkled.  But 
had  he  been  intent  on  proving  what  he  hasoaid  to  be  false,  u  that 
baptism  is  not  once  mentioned  as  immersion  in  the  NewTtsta- 
•  ''  he  co'ild  notjrave  done  it  more  effectuallv,  than  by  hi 

C  c 


producing  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  wherein  the  apostles 
were  literally  immersed,  and  therefore  properly  baptized. 

Mr*  E.  acknowledges,  that  when  Naaman  was  commanded 
by  Elisha  to  go  and  wash  or  baptize  in  Jordan,  that  it  is  rendered 
he  dipped.  "  Naaman  went  down  and  baptized  in  Jordan. 
The  English  has  it  l  dipped*  and  this  is  the  only  place  where 
baptize  is  translated  ■  dip."  This  is  an  extraordinary  passage. 
The  reader  will  turn  back  to  Mr.  E.'s  first  argument  on  the 
mode  of  baptism,  where  he  will  see,  that  he  declares  the  word 
"  bapto"  is  never  used  in  scripture  respecting  this  ordinance  ;" 
yet  he  now  has  found  out  that  it  is  once  so  used  ;  so  much  for 
his  inconsistency.  Well,  if  there  is  but  one,  is  not  that  sufficient  ? 
But  how  will  he  manage  this  dreadful  passage  ?  Why,  reader, 
he  will  try  to  take  it  to  bits,  raise  doubts  ;  and,  as  is  usual  with 
him  in  such  cases,  not  being  able  to  deny  that  the  word  dip  was 
to  immerse,  he  conjectures  it  might  be  a  partial  immersion,  or 
that  he  might  have  been  u  figuratively"  baptized  or  dipped.  Then, 
sir,  at  last  it  is  wrung  out  of  you,  that  to  dip  is  to  immerse,  and 
to  baptize  is  to  dip.  You  would  wish  to  escape  the  consequence 
of  all  this,  by  supposing  the  immersion  was  a  partial  one.  Very- 
well,  we  will  suppose  Elisha  did  not  mean  he  should  baptize 
himself,  but  only  the  part  affected,  and  that  this  he  performed, 
and,  as  you  say,  this  dipping  was  an  immersion  of  the  part. 
Now,  who  does  not  see  that  you  have  conceded  all  we  ask,  that 
the  command  to  wash  the  affected  part,  meant  to  dip  it  under 
water  ?  and  if  dipping  it  means  to  immerse  it,  then,  of  course, 
the  word  baptize  signifies  to  dip,  and  if  Christ  commands  his 
children  to  be  baptized,  dipped,  immersed,  and  that  not  only  in 
part,  but  wholly,  where  is  rantizing  fled  ?  You  seem,  sir,  mightily 
troubled  with  this  text,  and  not  liking  very  well  the  concession 
that  was  extorted  from  you,  the  dernier  resort  is,  to  imagine  he 
was  figuratively  baptized,  "  And  sin  baptizes  me ;  meaning  the 
punishment  due  to  sin,  which  is  expressed  by  pouring  out  anger, 
&c.  on  a  person."  The  plain  English  of  all  this  will  be,  that 
there  must  be  a  figurative  Elisha — a  figurative  Naaman — a 
figurative  Jordan — a  figurative  dipping,  i.  e.  pouring,  and  a 
figurative  healing.  What  a  group  of  figures  here  are  !  and  may 
we  not  really  suppose  that  Mr.  E.  was  figuring  to  purpose., 
when  he  first  has  Naaman  in  the  water  dipping  the  leprous  part, 
and  then  in  a  trice  he  has  him  not  dipping  at  all,  but  a  stream 
pouring  on  him  from  above  ?  Yea,  and  not  that  in  reality,  but 
Only  figuratively  !  It  would  indeed  puzzle  the  gentleman  of  the 
bar,  to  find  out  what  this  figurative  baptizing  of  Naaman  means. 
Do,  Mr.  Edwards,  in  your  next,  be  more  explicit,  and  let  us 
know  how  Naaman's  leprosy  looked  after  it  was  figuratively 
baptized ;  whether  he  was  figuratively  delivered  from  pain, 


199 

and  figuratively  returned  to  Damascus,  to  a  figurative  king  o* 
Assyria,  Once  more,  sir  ;  in  your  figurative  baptism,  you 
compared  it  to  pouring  out  the  wrath  of  God,  and  it  seems  with 
you,  that  pouring  is  not  an  overwhelming,  but  a  sprinkling  :  if 
so,  you  no  doubt  tell  the  people  how  dreadful  it  is  to  be  sprinkled 
with  the  wrath  of  God,  not  buried  in  it,  or  overwhelmed  with 
it,  for  this  you  say  is  not  baptism.  This  doctrine  must  affright 
the  people  much,  especially  when  they  see  that  by  sprinkling 
you  mean  as  many  drops  as  are  cast  in  an  infant's  face. 

All  that  Mr.  Ef  says  about  Naaman  dipping  the  affected  part, 
is  mere  conjecture  :  it  is  not  expressed  in  the  text,  neither  can 
he  make  it  appear  that  he  was  not  leprous  all  over  his  body  ;  for 
we  have  as  much  right  to  contend  for  the  one,  as  he  has  for  the 
other :  but  he  had  the  direction  given  to  wash  in  Jordan  for 
the  cure  of  his  leprosy,  as  lepers  in  common  had  to  do  in  Israel 
when  cleansed  ;  but  this  will  make  for  immersion.  I  now 
remark,  that  the  words  "  wash"  and  "  dip,"  are  of  the  same 
import :  Elisha  says  to  Naaman,  "  Go  wash  in  Jordan  ;"  he 
goes,  but  how  does  he  perform  it  ?  The  text  says  he  dipped 
himself  seven  times ;  so  in  like  manner  the  leper  was  commanded 
by  Moses,  after  being  sprinkled  with  the  blood,  to  go  and  wash 
himself  and  cloaths,  not  xvith^  but u  tnn  water,  and  he  should 
be  healed. 

One  remark  more  shall  close  my  observations  on  what  is 
advanced  by  this  writer.  It  is  on  his  last  observation,  "  that 
the  scriptures  commonly  join  material  and  spiritual  baptism 
together  as  counter  parts  of  each  other."  Admitting  this  senti- 
ment in  its  full  extent,  although  I  should  not  select  such  texts 
to  prove  it  as  he  does ;  but  if  so,  then  immersion  only  can  be 
a  figure  of  the  inward  work  on  the  soul.  How  can  sprinkling 
a  few  drops  of  water  on  the  face,  be  a  complete  figure  of  the 
renovating  influences  of  the  Spirit  ?  Does  this  renewing  only 
extend  to  one  part  of  the  spirit  of  man,  or  to  ail  ?  If  it  does  to 
the  whole  man,  sprinkling  cannot  be  the  figure,  because  it  is  not 
applied  to  the  whole  man  j  but  immersion  is,  and  must  be  the 
scripture  baptism. 

I  now  return  to  make  a  few  strictures  on  the  pamphlet 
mentioned  before  :  but  in  so  doing,  I  find,  that  were  I  to  follow 
this  author,  it  would  only  be  to  repeat  the  observations  made 
on  Mr.  E.'s  performance.  There  are  not  half  a  dozen  new 
thoughts  in  all  this  part  of  his  book,  but  the  author  has  in  a  most 
servile  manner  copied  Edwards  ;  so  that  I  shall  have  frequent 
©ccasion  to  refer  the  reader  to  what  has  been  already  offered. 

This  author  charges  the  Baptists  with  "  unchurching'  all  the 
churches  in  the  world,  except  those  who  agree  with  them  in  the 
mode  of  baptizing— -that  they  deny  the  call  and  mission  of  their 


300 

Ministers  ;  invalidate  and  nullify  their  ordinances,  and  Ofcc&fB 
rnunicate  tliousands,  whom  they  cannot  denv  to  be  eminent  for 
faith  and  holiness."  This  is  high  colouring,  and  only  part  of  it 
is  true.  That  the  Baptists  have  denied  the  right  of  Pcedobaptist 
ministers  to  administer  ordinances,  is  true  ;  and  that,  because 
we  think  unbaptized  persons  are  not  qualified  to  administer  an 
ordinance  they  have  never  received  :  but  that  we  have  denied 
their  call  to  the  sacred  work  of  the  ministry,  is  untrue.  If  they 
have  not  entered  on  that  work  properly,  winch  we  think  they 
have  not,  it  will  be  theirs  to  account  to  God  therefor.  Neither 
have  we  denied  that  great  numbers  of  Pedobaptists  are  eminent 
for  piety,-  yekj  full  as  much  so  as  the  Baptists  ;  yet  we  do  not 
think  that  their  rejection  of  an  ordinance  of  Christ  is  excusable 
on  that  account,  nor  that  their  piety  consists  therein.  Piety 
never  sanctioned  an  error.  But  if  we  deny  that  Pcsdobaptkt 
churches  are  regular  gospel  churches,  we  do  in  this  only  act  on 
their  own  principles,  and  deal  out  to  them  as  they  do  to  others. 

To  shew  how  far  they  go  themselves  in  this  business,  we  have 
only  to  ask  the  compiler  of  this  sermon  these  questions :  Do  yon 
believe  that  Quakers  are  christi  ns  ?  Do  vou  believe  there  are 
those  among  them  as  eminent  for  piety  as  any  among  the  Pcedo- 
baptists  I  Now  to  these  questions.,  we  doubt  not  the  answer 
would  be  in  the  affirmative.  Well,  we  ask  again :  Do  vo*i 
believe  that  the  societies  of  friends  are  regular  gospel  churches? 
Would  you  admit  a  believing  Quaker  to  the  Lord's  table  with 
you,  were  he  to  desire  it  ?  The  answer  to  these  questions  would 
be  in  the  negative.  We  then  ask  again,  Why  do  not  you  deem 
them  a  gospel  church  r  Whv  will  vou  not  admit  them  to  the 
supper  ?  To  the  first  question  you  answer,  they  do  not  conform 
to  the  primitive  churches  in  ordinances  and  worship ;  to  the  last, 
you  sav  a  Quaker  has  not  been  baptizedi  anil  no  unbaptized 
persons  have  a  right  to  the  supper.  Now,  in  all  this,  you  stand 
in  the  view  of  a  Baptist,  as  a  Quaker  does  in  vours  ;  and  if  your 
reasons  are  sufficient  to  keep  a  believing  Quaker  from  the  table, 
were  he  to  desire  it,  the  same  reasons  would  justify  a  Baptist  in 
denving  a  Predobaptist  that  privilege  ;  for  we  do  most  con- 
scientiously declare,  that  we  look  upon  the  one  to  be  as  much 
unbaptized  as  the  other  ;  yea,  that  sprinkling  is  no  baptism 
at  all. 

He  adds,  that  cc  we  a*USt  conclude,  that  dipping  cannot  be 
essential  to  baptism,  and  christian  communion.  The  conse- 
quences are  not  to  be  endured."  Why  not  dipping  essential  to 
baptism  \  does  the  departure  of  Fcedobaptists  make  it  less  essential 
than  it  formerly  was  ?  If  it  cannot  be  endured,  because  of  the 
serious  consequence  arising  from  such  an  admission,  who  is  the 
efiuse  of  ail  this  \    Will  you  charge  on  the  Baptists  the  consc 


201 

quences  of  jrour  own  error  ?  But  why  so  afraid  of  consequence pf 
what  are  tney,  sir  ?  Speak  out.  I  will  not,  I  dare  not  say,  that 
the  revenue  arising  from  Pcedobaptism  (though  it  is  considerable) 
is  that  dreadful  consequence  ;  neither  will  I  say  it  is  a  desire  to 
multiply  numbers,  and  attach  them  to  a  particular  place  from 
motives  of  interest.  But,  what  is  it  ?  Is  the  pride  of  opinion  at 
bottom  ?  Has  the  error  grown  grey  ?  Will  it  be  too  much  to 
vield  to  these  despised  Baptists  f  Is  it,  that  you  would  thereby 
acknowledge  yourselves  unbaptized  ?  If,  sir,  it  is  pride,  do  not 
let  it  weigh  a  moment,  it  is  an  easy  thing  for  wise  and  good  men 
to  be  mistaken  ;  and,  stubbornly  to  persist  in  a  practice  our 
better  judgment  tells  us  is  wrong,  must  surely  be  offensive  to 
God.  Is  it  beneath  you  to  yield  in  sentiment  to  Baptists  ?  Still, 
sir,  remember  the  Saviour  himself  was  a  Baptist ;  do  not  think 
it  beneath  you  to  conform  to  his  example,  however  much  you 
may  think  yourselves  justified  in  despising  our  "  inferiority"  of 
talent.  But  the  last  is  probably  the  true  cause.  O,  it  is  too  much, 
too  much,  savs  a  Pcedobaptist,  to  admit  we  are  unbaptized,  that 
our  churches  are  not  regular — ministers  are  not  regular  !  Well, 
sir,  truth  is  truth,  however  much  it  may  offend — may  grind  the 
feelings,  or  run  counter  to  great  and  respectable  bodies  of  men : 
but  you  may  as  well  begin  this  business  iirst  as  last,  down  infant 
sprinkling  must  come,  the  latter  day  glory  will  destroy  it,  it  is 
now  trembling  to  its  very  base ;  and,  dreadful  as  the  consequences 
may  be  to  vou;  and  however  much  deplored,-  they  must,  they 
will  most  certainly  ensue. 

The  author  of  this  sermon  thinks  he  has  caught  ns  in  his  snare, 
when  he  affirms,  that  the  Baptists  at  first  "received  their  baptism 
from  the  hands  of  such  who,  according  to  their  principles,  were 
unbaptized,  and  consequently  could  not  be  regularly  authorized 
to  administer  the  ordinance*"  and  from  thence  he  infers,  that  if 
their  administration  be  invalid,  so  must  ours  be,  who  received 
it  at  first  from  them.  We  must  beg  leave  to  differ  from  this- 
gentleman  on  the  kst  mentioned  point  j  for  we  can  readily  prov-* 
that  immersion  has  never  been  laid  aside  entirely  in  the  church, 
even  in  the  darkest  ages  of  popery  ;  yea,  we  hope  to  shew  in  the 
sequel,  that  sprinkling  itself  is  a  novel  thing,  and  that  it  was 
scarcely  three  centuries  back  that  it  came  into  use. 

The  first  thing  he  now  undertakes  to  prove  is,  "  that  the 
proper  meaning  of  the  word  baptize,  does  not  always  imply 
dipping*"  Not  "  always*  Reader,  remark  that  word  :  this  is 
a  concession  in  our  favour,  and  is  an  admission  that  it  sometime*} 
does  mean  dipping.  Is  it  not  strange,  that  the  preacher  should 
have  dared  to  deviate  from  his  text  book,  Mr.  E.  ?  You  see,  by 
the  by,  that  these  gentlemen  do  not  agree  among  themselves — 
Edwards  says,  it c  never'  means  dipping,  but  our  author  thinks 


202 

k  does  c  sometimes.'  What  a  pity  he  did  not  furnish  us  with  a 
list  of  texts  for,  and  against !  Well,  what  does  it  mean,  sir  I 
u  It  properly  imports  a  wetting,  washing,  bathing  in  any  mode, 
or  bleeding,  or  weeping,  or  otherwise."  Do  go  on,  sir ;  do  not 
stop  yet,  you  will  spoil  our  diversion.  u  Otherwise  !"  What 
otherwise  ?  What  a  pity  you  broke  off  so  short !  Bleeding  and 
weeping  are  baptism  !  Reader,  did  you  ever  read  in  your  Bible 
of  such  baptisms  as  bleeding  and  weeping  ?  You  have  indeed 
read  of  garments  baptized  in  blood,  and  of  Christ's  feet  being 
baptized  with  tears ;  but  are  the  actions  of  bleeding  and  weeping, 
baptizing  ?  You  must  let  our  author  prove  it,  and  here  you  have 
his  proof :  "  All  the  lexicons  and  critics,  so  far  as  I  have  found, 
ngree,  that  the  word  signifies  to  wet,  or  wash,  as  zvell  as  dip" 
One  thing  you  remark  in  this  question  is,  that  he  does  not 
pretend  his  critics  and  lexicons  allow  sprinkling*  to  be  baptism. 
So  then,  poor  sprinkling,  as  our  "  eastern  friends  say,"  comes 
out  at  the  little  end  of  the  horn  ;  not  a  word,  not  one  word,  in  aH 
the  critics,  in  all  the  lexicons,  that  allows  sprinkling  to  be 
baptism  !  But  how  does  this  agree  with  what  he  said  in  the 
paragraph  just  before,  that  sprinkling  is  called  baptism  ?  You 
will  again  observe,  all  his  critics  and  lexicons  can  do  for  him  is, 
to  expound  baptize  to  u  wash,  to  wet,  as  well  as  dip ;"  mark  that, 
"  as  well  as  dip."  Now  reader,  this  author  has  told  the  truth ; 
but  he  has  not  told  the  whole  truth.  The  Greek  lexicons  do,  as 
he  says,  make  the  word  baptize  signify,  to  dip,  and  this  they 
give  as  the  primary  sense  of  the  word  ;  and  they  allow  likewise, 
that  it  signifies  to  wash,  or,  if  he  pleases,  wet ;  but  then,  this  is 
as  a  consequence  of  dipping  ;  for  any  one  must  see,  that  a  thing 
that  is  dipped  must  needs  be  washed,  or  wet  all  over.  But  they 
never  did  allow,  that  to  sprinkle  a  little  water  on  a  thing,  was  to 
baptize  it,  or  that  to  wash  a  part  of  a  garment,  was  to  wash 
the  whole  of  it. 

What  a  miserable  falling  out  is  there  between  this  gentleman 
and  Edwards !  He  allows  that  dipping  is  called  baptism — 
Edwards  denies  it,  and  says  it  is  not  so.  This  writer  goes 
to  lexicons  and  critics  to  help  him  out :  but  the  very  name  of  a 
lexicographer  was  to  Mr.  Edwards  like  a  shock  of  electricity; 
he  is  ready  to  scout  them  as  a  parcel  of  unprincipled  villains. 
Now,  whence  arose  this  conflict  of  sentiment  ?  The  answer  is 
plain  :  Edwards  was  a  man  lost  to  pious  feeling,  was  disposed 
to  take  ever)'  undue  advantage  in  controversy  ;  and,  therefore, 
knowing  that  the  universal  testimony  of  lexicons  was  in  favour 
of  the  Baptists,  he  would  have  nothing  to  do  with  them  in  debate, 
and  roundly  abuses  Booth  for  mentioning  of  them.     But  our 

*  But  of  late,  in  this  city,  I  understand  stroking  of  the  face  with  the  hand 
U  substituted  for  sprinkling. 


203 

author  has  made  lexicons  speak  ;  yea,  declares  they  all  speafc 
alike  in  this  thing  ;  and  what  will  no  doubt  enrage  his  textarian 
much,  he  tells  the  world  what  Edwards  denied  was  true,  even 
that  to  dip  is  to  baptize ;  yea,  and  has  done  more,  he  allows 
they  do  not  say  that  sprinkling  is  to  baptize. 

He  goes  on  to  say,  that  if  the  Baptists  are  yet  dissatisfied,  i.  e. 
with  the  testimony  of  lexicons,  "  we  must  examine  the  matter 
farther."  That  we  are  not  quite  satisfied  is  most  certain,  and 
that  for  two  reasons:  1.  He  has  not  mentioned  the  lexicons 
and  critics  alluded  to,  that  we  might  have  had  the  pleasure  of 
consulting  them  with  him,  and  seen  that  he  quoted  fairly.  2.  He 
has  not  given  us  the  decision  of  Greek  lexicons  in  their  own 
words,  nor  has  he  told  more  than  a  part  of  what  they  say  ;  and 
I  now  demand  of  him,  whether  any  lexicons  have  ever  given  the 
sense  of"  baptize"  to  wash,  or  wet,  unless  as  a  consequence  of 
dipping,  as  a  garment,  or  any  thing  dipped,  must  of  necessity 
be  washed,  or  wet  ? 

In  this  sermon  proof  is  offered  from  scripture,  that  "  baptize* 
does  not  always  signify  an  immersion.  This  we  shall  examine- 
In  page  7,  he  has  confounded  the  practice  among  the  Jews  of 
baptizing  after  they  return  from  market,  with  that  of  baptizing 
their  hands  before  they  sit  down  to  dine  ;  and  then  he  adds, 
n  This  shews,  that  in  the  language  of  the  New  Testament,  a 
person  is  said  to  be  baptized,  when  a  small  part  of  his  body  is 
washed."  When  the  Pharisee,  in  Luke  xi.  38.  wondered,  it 
was  not  on  account  that  Christ  did  not  baptize  himself,  but  thai 
he  did  not  baptize  his  hands  before  he  eat ;  and  to  evince  this 
was  the  meaning,  the  same  fault  is  found  with  the  disciples  in 
Mark  vii.  8.  "  And  when  they  saw  some  of  his  disciples  eat 
bread  with  defiled,  that  is  to  say,  with  uiywashen  hands,  they 
found  fault."  Is  it  then  said,  as  this  author  has  affirmed,  that 
washing  of  hands  is  called  a  washing  of  the  whole  man,  and 
therefore  a  baptizing  of  a  small  part  of  the  body  attributed  to 
the  whole  ?  He  knows  that  the  representation  he  gave  was  not 
warranted  by  the  text.  But  why  huddle  the  two  together  as 
one  thing  ?  The  reader  will  see,  in  turning  over  to  my  answer 
to  Mr.  E.,  that  when  the  Jews  came  from  market,  they  did  in 
reality  baptize  themselves,  lest  they  had  been  denied  by  the 
touch  of  some  unclean  person  ;  but  in  the  other  case,  before 
eating,  they  never  did  more  than  to  wash  their  hands. 

On  Heb.  ix.  10.  u  Which  stood  in  meats  and  drinks,  and 
divers  washings,'?  he  says,  u  The  Greek  is,  different  baptisms" 
He  then  inters,  that  u  purifications  by  sprinkling  are  especially 
intended,"  verse  13.  M  For  if  the  blood  of  bulls,  and  of  goats, 
and  the  ashes  of  an  heifer,  sprinkling  the  unclean,  sanctineth  to 
the  purifying  of  the  flesh  ;"  and  th?r.  he  proceed*  to  0 


204 

to  be  "  plain  proof  that  Sprinkling  is  a  true  baptism/'  But  this 
plain  proof  of  his  is  no  proof  at  all ;  and  tnat,  because  the 
sprinkling  of  the  unclean  man  with  the  blood  of  bulls  and  goats 
did  not  cleanse  him  without  the  further  process  of  his  bathing 
himself  in  water.  See  Num.  xix.  19.  "  And  the  clean  person 
shall  sprinkle  upon  the  unclean  on  the  third  day,  and  on  the 
seventh  day :  and  on  the  seventh  day  he  shall  purify  himself, 
and  wash  his  cloaths,  and  bathe  .himself  in  water,  and  shall  be 
clean  at  even."  Now,  where  is  this  plain  proof  for  sprinkling? 
is  it  in  the  bathing  in  water?  There  was  in  this  process  a  twofold 
cleansing  prefigured  ;  a  cleansing  from  the  guilt  of  sin,  which 
was  set  forth  by  the  blood  sprinkled  on  the  person,  and  this  was 
to  set  forth  the  atonement  by  Christ;  and  there  was  in  the 
washing  of  the  body  in  water,  a  representation  of  the  Spirit  in 
sanctifying,  or  cleansing  from  the  filth  of  sin,  Atonement  for 
sin  is  never  mentioned  m  the  New  Testament  as  represented  by 
baptism  ;  but  baptism  is  frequently  used  as  an  expression  of 
regeneration,  and  the  same  thing  wTas  set  forth  by  dipping  in 
water,  in  the  text  quoted. 

But  how  this  author  could  think  of  advancing  1  Cor.  x.  1,  2. 
a  Our  fathers  were  under  the  cloud,  and  all  passed  through  the 
sea  ;  and  were  all  baptized  unto  Moses  in  the  cloud,  and  in  the 
sea,"  as  at1  argument  in  favour  of  sprinkling,  is  to  me  amazing. 
You,  sir,  think  it  rained  on  them ;  but  the  text  says  no  such  thing, 
and  the  Psalm  (lxviii.  7.,  8.)  you  refer  to,  will  not  apply,  because 
the  Israelites  were  not  then  in  the  sea,  but  in  the  wilderness  ; 
and  you  would  render  their  march  through  the  sea  very  uncom- 
fortable, the  spray  of  the  sea  flying  over  them,  and  the  rain 
pouring  on  them.  If  what  you  say  is  true,  the  apostie  must  be 
mistaken  when  he  says  they  passed  through  the  sea  as  on  dry 
ground,  Heb.  xi.  29.  The  text  does  not  say,  as  you  insinuate, 
that  they  were  baptized  by  the  cloud,  and  by  the  sea,  the  one 
dashing  its  spray,  the  other  dropping  in  rain  :  no,  but  a  in  the 
cloud ;  in  the  sea."  Of  course,  the  gloss  is  a  flimsy  one  indeed. 
That  the  Egyptians  were  baptized  in  the  sea  is  true,  though  they 
were  not  baptized  unto  Moses,  but  unto  Pharaoh,  whom  they 
had  followed  thither..  That  the  children  of  Israel  were  covered 
ay  the  cloud  and  sea,  you  do  not  deny  ;  but  pretend  to  cavil  at 
the  idea  of  their  being  baptized,  unless  they  had  been  wet ;  yet, 
sir,  you  might  have  recollected  that  Noah  and  his  family  were 
said  to  be  a  figure  of  baptism,  while  in  the  ark,  nor  can  you  say 
the  rain  wet  them,  for  the  ark  was  covered  and  they  defended 
from  it ;  and  yet  the  clouds  covering  the  ark  above,  and  the 
waters  beneath,  are  called  by  Peter  a  figure  of  baptism,,  1  Pet. 
in.  21.  You  might  on  the  same  principles  deny  that  Christ  was 
in  the  heart  of  the  earth,  because  he  was  enclosed  in  ft  tomb 


205 

newn  out  of  a  rock  ;  yet,  in  John  xii.  24.  he  is  said,  like  a  corn, 
of  wheat,  to  be  in  the  ground.  Baptism  is  called  a  burial :  but 
in  page  15,  you  insinuate  that  Christ  was  not  buried  ;  that  he 
was  only  put  in  the  hollowed  rock  ;  yet,  sir,  Paul  owns  you  not 
as  his  disciple  in  this,  1  Cor.  xv.  4.  "  And  that  he  was  buried^ 
and  that  he  rose  again  the  third  day."  You,  sir,  must  be  sensible, 
that  a  person  is  not  the  less  buried  because  the  earth  does  not 
touch  him,  but  only  his  coffin ;  neither  are  you  ignorant  of  this, 
that  baptism  signifies  a  covering,  an  overwhelming ;  and  that 
when  this  is  by  water,  wetting  is  not  the  baptism,  but  an  effect 
of  it. 

How  you  can  compare  sprinkling  to  covering  a  person  in  the 
grave,  is  laughable  enough.  Do  you,  sir,  ever  sprinkle  so  much 
water  on  the  candidate  as  to  bury  him  with  it  ?  All  the  notice  I 
shall  take  of  this  is,  just  to  observe,  the  apostle  says  they  were 
baptized  "  hi  the  cloud,  and  in  the  sea  :"  but  if  your  interpreta- 
tion were  just,  he  ought  to  have  said  they  were  baptized  in  the 
spray  of  the  sea,  and  in  the  rain  from  the  cloud  ;  but  any  one 
can  well  conceive  how  they  were  (not  seemingly,  as  you  sug- 
gest we  say)  really  baptized  in  both,  when  they  were  literally 
surrounded  and  enclosed  with  these  waters.  As  to  the  people 
being  sanctified  by  the  rain,  in  imitation  of  the  sprinkling  of 
the  unclean,  that  has  been  already  noticed ;  and  it  has  been 
proved,  that  the  sprinkling  of  the  unclean  was  not  called  a 
baptism,  but  his  bathing  in  water  was  so  denominated ;  therefore 
the  allusion  is  folly. 

Christ's  sufferings  being  called  a  baptism,  Luke  xii.  50.  "  I 
have  a  baptism  to  be  baptized  writh  ;  and  how  am  I  straitened 
till  it  be  accomplished,"  is  supposed  by  him  to  be  in  favour  of 
sprinkling,  but  with  what  propriety  judge  ye.  He  is  said  to  have 
sweat  blood — to  have  poured  out  strong  cries  and  tears — to 
have  been  crucified.  Our  author  thinks  this  will  be  better 
expressed  by  sprinkling  than  immersion.  But  how  trifling  does 
this  represent  his  sufferings  to  be,  to  compare  them  only  to  a 
few  drops  of  water  sprinkled  on  a  person  !  Our  opponents 
themselves  must  own,  that  an  overwhelming  in  sorrows  and 
pains,  is  a  more  lively  description  of  them.  Sprinkling  is  only 
©n  one  part  of  the  body  ;  but  Christ's  sufferings  extended  over 
the  whole  man,  yea,  to  his  very  soul ;  and,  it  is  evident,  they 
underrate  the  sufferings  of  Jesus  very  much  indeed,  when  they 
compare  them  to  a  sprinkling.  To  represent  the  extent  of 
Christ's  sufferings,  and  to  shew  how  incompatible  they  are  with 
sprinkling,  yea,  and  that  they  are  really  set  forth  by  immersion, 
or  dipping ;  see  these  pa.ssages,  which  are  concerning  Christ. 
Saints  are  said  to  be  *'  washed  (not  sprinkled)  from  their  sins  in 
his  own  biood,"  Rev.  >,  5.     His  garments  are  said  to  be  dved 

Dd 


206 

(not  sprinkled),  Isaiah  vi.  3.  The  waters  are  said  to  cover  him, 
Psalm  Ixix.  20.  u  I  am  come  into  deep  waters  where  the  floods 
overflow  me  :"  this  surely  is  no  sprinkling.  What  the  fathers 
3aid  figuratively  of  the  martyrs,  comparing  their  sufferings  to  a 
baptism,  is  not  in  point ;  but,  no  doubt,  many  of  them  were 
covered  with  their  own  blood. 

There  is  very  little  said  by  this  author  on  the  baptism  of  the 
Holy  Ghost,  but  what  has  been  noticed  in  my  reply  to  Mr.  E. 
The  reader  will  bear  in  mind  that  the  shedding  forth,  and  pouring 
out  of  the  Spirit  on  the  apostles  at  Pentecost,  filled  the  room 
where  they  sat,  and  overwhelmed  them  entirely ;  and  surely 
this  cannot  favour  sprinkling,  unless  our  opponents  do  bury  their 
candidates  in  water  by  pouring  or  sprinkling  it  on  them  in  great 
quantities :  but  this,  experience  proves  not  true.     I  am  amazed 
out  of  measure  at  seeing  such  a  quotation  as  the  following,  to 
prove  sprinkling,  Isaiah  xliv.  3.   "  I  will  pour  waters  on  the 
thirsty,  and  foods  on  the  dry  ground."     Is  the  baptism  of  the 
Spirit  compared  to  floods  ?  How  then  in  the  name  of  wonder  can 
it  set  forth  sprinkling  ?  Do  Pcedobaptists  pour  out  floods  of  water 
on  their  children  ?  But,  says  he,  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost 
is  called  sprinkling,  Ezek.  xxxvi.  25.    "  I  will  sprinkle  clean 
water  upon  you,  and  ye  shall  be  clean."     Our  author  is  still 
unfortunate :  the  passage  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  baptism  of 
the  Holy  Ghost,  for  that  took  place  at  Pentecost  before  the 
dispersion  of  the  children  of  Israel ;  but  this  was  to  be  done  for 
the  Jews  after  they  were  restored  in  the  latter  day,  which  appears 
in  verse  24,  "  For  I  will  take  you  from  among  the  heathen,  and 
gather  you  out  of  all  countries,  and  will  bring  you  into  your  own 
land."     This  proves,  that  the  baptism  of  the  Spirit  was  not 
intended,  that  having  existed  prior  to  their  dispersion.     The 
sprinkling  of  clean  water  was  not  in  allusion  to  baptism  ;  but 
to  the  waters  of  purification  mentioned  in  Numbers  xix.  and 
which  being  made  out  of  the  ashes  of  the  red  heifer,  that  was 
burnt  without  the  camp,  was  a  lively  type  of  Christ — was  to  set 
forth,  not  the  Spirit,  but  the  atoning  blood  of  the  Lamb—not 
a  cleansing  from  the  filth,  but  the  guilt  of  sin  \  which  last,  bap- 
tism never  represents.     If  it  did  allude  to  the  influences  of  the 
Spirit,  it  could  not  be  to  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  because 
that  was  not  a  sprinkling,  but  an  overwhelming,  as  I  have  made 
abundantly  to  appear.     When  we  ask  a  Pcedobaptist  to  advance 
proof  that  sprinkling  is  baptism,  he  immediately  replies,  "  I  will 
sprinkle  clean  water  upon  you."    To  say  nothing  about  going  to 
fke  OidTestament  in  this  case  for  a  command,  being  highlv  absurd, 
rhe  fallacy  of  applying  this  to  baptism  thus  appears  :   1.  It  cannot 
mean  baptism,  for  it  is  said  God  will  sprinkle  it ;  whereas  it  is 
not  God  that  administers  baptism,  but  man.     2.  Baptism  doe* 


20/ 

not  cleanse  from  sin,  but  it  is  said  in  the  text,  "  and  ye  shall  be 
clean."  3.  Nor  is  it  essential  to  baptizing,  that  it  should  be 
done  with  clean  water,  although  it  is  desirable.  But  apply  this 
'n  the  meaning  of  the  text,  it  will  stand  thus  :  I  will,  saith  God, 
in  the  latter  day,  "  take  you  from  among  the  heathen,  and  gather 
you  out  of  all  countries,  and  bring  you  into  your  own  land  ;  I 
will  sprinkle  clean  water,"  or  cleanse  you  from  your  idols ;  as  a 
man  is  cleansed  who  has  been  defiled  by  a  dead  body,  with 
having  the  waters  of  purification  upon  him,  so  will  I  forgive 
your  sin,  through  the  atonement  of  my  Son,  which  those  waters 
represent,  whose  atonement  does  remove  guilt,  as  the  waters  of 
purification  did  ceremonial  defilement.  Nor  does  the  unction, 
or  anointing,  mentioned  in  1  John  ii.  20.  27.  mean  the  baptism 
of  the  Holy  Ghost,  as  this  author  affirms ;  for,  as  I  have  proved, 
that  the  baptism  of  the  Spirit  and  regeneration  are  by  no  means 
the  same,  and  that  the  first  w?s  confined  to  the  apostolic  age,  and 
has  long  ago  ceased,  while  the  other  always  did,  and  always 
will  exist ;  and  as  every  christian  has  that  inward  spiritual 
illumination  of  which  the  text  speaks,  it  cannot  be  spiritual 
baptism,  forasmuch  as  that  miraculous  baptism  ceased,  when 
the  mission  of  Christ  and  his  apostles  was  confirmed.  I  am 
ready  to  examine  this  matter  largely  as  a  separate  subject,  if 
called  upon.  This  being  the  case,  the  gentleman's  allusion  does 
entirely  fail,  and  the  pouring  of  a  little  oil  on  the  head  as  an 
anointing,  did  not  point  to  spiritual  baptism  ;  and  cannot,  there- 
fore, help  the  cause  of  sprinkling. 

His  concluding  remark  on  this  part  of  the  argument  is,  that 
in  all  the  translations  of  the  New  Testament  he  had  ever  seen, 
the  word  •*  baptizo  is  never  rendered  to  signifv  immersion,  but 
that  they  either  retain  the  original  ivord,  or  render  it  washing, 
or  ablution."  It  is  hard  for  me  to  determine,  what  translations 
this  gentleman  has  seen,  or  whether  he  has  taken  measures  to 
seek  for  such  information  ;  but  one  thing  is  certain,  that  such 
translations  may  be  found,  as  do  render  the  word  baptizo  in 
opposition  to  his  sentiment.  I  agree  with  him,  that  a  right 
translation  of  that  word  would  lay  the  controversy  at  rest ;  and 
it  is  owing  to  this  word  not  being  translated  in  our  editions  of 
the  Bible,  that  the  learned  take  advantage  of  their  hearers,  and 
make  them  believe,  that  to  dip  or  plunge,  is  not  the  meaning 
of  the  word.  But  why  has  not  the  word  been  translated ;  whose 
fault  is  it  ?  Were  Baptists  the  translators  ?  If  that  were  the  case, 
would  not  a  non-translation  look  suspicious  t  But  this  is  not  the 
fact :  the  translators  were  advocates  of  infant  sprinkling,  and 
they  have  not  done  it.  But  why  have  they  not  done  it,  and 
especially  if  it  would  make  in  their  favour  ?  Does  not  this  of 
itself  warrant  strong  suspicion  what  their  conviction  was  ?  Bur 


203 

the  truth  is,  that  to  render  it  to  sprinkle,  or  a  partial  wasning\ 
they  dare  not,  for  fear  of  the  consequence  ;  ("  he  that  takes 
away  from  my  word,  his  part  shall  be  taken  out  of  the  book  of 
life")  and  rather  than  do  justice,  and  thereby  condemn  their 
practice,  they  left  the  Greek  \vrord  untranslated.  But  the  gentle- 
man "  has  seen  no  such  translation  :"  let  him  then  examine  the 
High  Dutch  translation,  and  the  Low  Dutch  translation,  and 
also  the  Danish  ;  in  each  of  them  he  will  find  the  word  so 
translated,  where  John  the  Baptist  is  called  John  the  dipper, 
and  baptizing  called  dipping.  But  all  the  translations  he  has 
seen  "  render  it,  to  wash."  Here  again*  he  passes  a  deception 
on  us,  and  means  to  tell  a  part  of  the  truth  only.  Does  he  mean 
they  translated  the  word  baptizo  to  wash,  in  the  sense  Pcedo- 
baptists  mean,  that  is,  a  partial  wTashing;  or  do  they  render  it,  an 
entire  washing  as  a  consequence  of  dipping  ?  In  the  last  sense 
he  knows  they  have  translated  it,  and  not  in  the  former  ;  neither 
do  the  Baptists  deny  that  washing,  in  the  last  sense,  is  called 
baptism  in  the  word.  Is  it  not  monstrous  in  an  author  to  deal 
in  deception  at  this  rate  ?  We  thank  you,  sir,  for  one  thing;  you 
have  not,  it  seems,  found  one  translation  that  makes  baptizo 
signify  to  sprinkle:  poor  sprinkling  has  neither  the  original 
-word,  no  lexicon,  nor  yet  one  translation,  to  say  it  is  baptism  ; 
and  the  whole  testimony  in  favour  of  it,  is  in  Num.  xix.  where 
the  ashes  of  the  red  heifer  were  sprinkled  on  the  unclean  man, 
and  after  which  he  had  to  bathe  himself  in  water  before  he 
could  be  clean. 

Our  author  next  proceeds  in  his  remarks  on  the  examples  of 
baptizing,  recorded  in  the  New  Testament;  in  which  he  roundly 
asserts,  u  There  is  no  certainty  that  any  were  immersed,"  and 
declares  it "  morally  certain  that  it  was  not  the  constant  practice;" 
yet,  in  the  very  next  breath,  acknowledges  "  that  Christ  came  up 
out  of  the  water,  and  that  the  Jews  were  baptized  of  John  in 
Jordan."  It  is  true,  he  afterward  endeavours  to  weaken  this 
evidence  of  immersion,  by  the  same  use  of  Greek  prepositions 
with  Edwards  ;  but  is  "  willing  to  wave  that,"  as  a  point  not 
sufficiently  clear,  and  wThich  he,  as  a  good  ma?i,  did  not  dare  to 
defend  :  but  as  I  have  noticed  these  things  already,  I  will  follow 
him  in  his  other  arguments. 

He  thinks  that  going  into  the  water  was  no  evidence  of  their 
being  immersed,  but  that  they  might  have  been  sprinkled  there. 
That  such  a  thing  is  not  probable  must  be  evident,  because  the. 
idea  is  not  to  be  received  that  they  would  wade  in  the  water,  if 
not  to  be  immersed ;  and  especially  if  to  be  sprinkled,  they 
needed  not  have  come  to  Jordan  at  ail,  much  less  go  in  it.  If 
sprinkling  had  been  baptism,  it  is  admirable  that  John  went  tc 
Jordan  at  all ;    cities  would  have  been  the  most  convenien  , 


209 

where  every  family  could  furnish  their  bowl  of  water  at  least ; 
this  is  an  answer  to  those  who  think  he  went  to  rivers  to  furnish 
drink  for  their  camels,  for  in  that  case,  leaving  their  home  was 
nonsense.  But  how  will  this  do  ?  The  text  says,  "  They  were 
baptized  of  him  in  Jordan,"  Matth.  iii.  G.  If  they  were  sprinkled, 
or  water  poured  on  them,  it  was  not  the  truth  ;  for  in  that  case 
they  were  not  baptized  in  Jordan,  but  xvith  Jordan,  But  it  is 
**  impropable."  Why  :  Ci  It  seems  unlikely  that  mixed  multi- 
tudes of  both  sexes  should  be  dipped  naked"  Who  told  you, 
sir,  they  were  naked,  did  the  Baptists  ever  so  assert,  or  do  they 
now  baptize  naked  candidates  i  You  have  used  this  word 
44  naked"  twice.  What  was  your  motive,  sir  ?  Was  it  because 
destitute  of  argument,  and  did  you  mean  to  do  by  inuendo,  what 
you  could  not  accomplish  by  reasoning  ?  This,  sir,  is  of  apiece 
with  the  performance  of  one  of  your  fellow  labourers  (Mr. 
Findlay,  president  of  Princeton  college),  who  declared  that  the 
Baptists  took  females  into  the  water  with  transparent  garments 
on  :  but  you,  sir,  wished  to  be  more  indelicate,  and  as  if  to  shew 
a  lascivious  turn  of  thought,  nothing  but  the  word  "  naked" 
would  do.  You  say  it  must  have  been  done  so,  for  it  was  not 
customary  with  the  Jews  to  bathe  "  with  their  cloaths  on,  in 
which  respect  they  were  so  strict,  that  they  held  a  person  to  be 
unclean,  if  but  the  tip  of  one  of  his  lingers  were  uncovered." 
Is  not  this  contradicting  a  former  part  of  your  book,  where  you 
say,  "  Jewish  baptisms  were  by  sprinkling  the  ashes  of  an  heifej* 
on  the  unclean  ?"  Now,  it  seems,  they  were  unclean  if  but  the 
tip  of  the  linger  was  uncovered — O  consistency  !  But  what  has 
baptism  to  do  with  the  Jewish  ordinances  ?  It  was  not  a  rite  of 
Jewish,  but  of  christian  extraction.  Our  opponents  are  so  wedded 
to  the  old  Jewish  law,  that  it  is  for  ever  running  in  their  heads  ; 
and  our  author  thinks  that  John  patterned  after  them  ;  which  is 
not  the  fact.  You,  reader,  will*not  forget  however,  that  a  Jewish 
baptism  consisted  in  covering  "  all  over" — "  not  the  tip  of  the 
finger  to  be  left  out :"  you  will  not  believe  after  this,  they  were 
sprinklings  ;  and  pray  is  not  this  an  illustration  of  what  the  word 
baptize  means  I 

Our  author  cannot  conceive  "  where  they  should  change  their 
apparel,  or  how  those  that  came  unfurnished  should  obtain  a 
change  of  raiment."  But  who  told  the  gentleman  that  any  one 
of  them  came  unprepared  ?  Yea,  is  it  not  likelv  they  came  well 
prepared  ?  And  how  does  he  know  there  was  no  convenient 
place  to  undress  in  ?  Has  he  been  there,  or  has  the  Bible  told 
him  there  was  not  ?  Do,  sir,  for  the  sake  of  your  reputuation  as 
a  man  of  sense,  leave  such  foolish  quibbling.  But  "  travellers 
say,  there  are  only  springs  and  small  rivulets  to  be  found  in  this 
place."     What  travellers,  sir,  have  you  consulted  ?    Was  Mr. 


210 

Maundrei  one  of  them  ?  Certainly  not ;  for  he  says,  that  Jordan 
was  eight  and  nine  feet  in  depth  ;  and  if  it  were  so  shallow,  why 
do  the  scriptures  speak  of  the  fords  of  Jordan  ?  (Judges  iii.  28.) 
Is  it  customary  to  speak  of  places  in  a  river  as  fordable,when  it  is 
so  in  every  place  ?  How  absurd  !  Nor  can  the  supposed  number 
which  John  baptized,  be  used  as  an  argument  against  immersion; 
neither  is  there  any  necessity  for  us  to  suppose  with  him,  "  that 
John  must  stand  in  the  water  up  to  his  waist  a  great  part  of  his 
time,  to  dip  the  multitudes  that  came  to  him."  If  it  had  been 
any  where  said,  that  the  number  he  baptized  was  such  as  to 
make  it  impossible  to  perform  it,  there  would  be  some  reason  in 
the  objection  ;  but  as  the  word  o^God  is  silent  on  the  subject, 
on  what  does  such  conj  sqture  rest?  That  great  numbers  came  to 
him  will  not  be  denied  ;  but  how  many  he  baptized  is  another 
question.  We  know  hn  reiused  those  who  had  no  repentance  ; 
and  if  so,  his  task  could  not  be  very  hard  to  baptize  penitents 
only,  and  such  as  were  willing  to  receive  Christ  as  the  Messiah. 
It  does  not  appear  that  there  were  more  than  five  hundred 
disciples  to  bear  testimony  to  Christ's  ascension,  which  was 
probably  a  greater  number  than  John  ever  baptized. 

This  writer  thinks  that  several  instances  of  baptism  arc 
recorded,  which  in  his  view,  renders  "  the  supposition  of  their 
being  dipped  most  incredible."  He  is  of  opinion,  it  was  not  pos- 
silu  that  the  three  thousand  were  baptized  by  immersion  u  on 
the  day  of  Pentecost;  for  it  was  at  least  nine  o'clock  when  Peter 
began  his  sermon."  But,  sir,  who  says  thev  were  baptized  on  that 
day  ?  I  am  sure  the  text  does  not,  neither  do  the  Baptists  so 
affirm  ;  and  all  the  narrative  says  is,  "  And  the  same  day  there 
were  added  unto  them  about  three  thousand  souls,"  Acts  ii.  41. 
Is  it  here  said,  as  you  insinuate,  that  these  were  baptized  that 
day  ?  But  even  if  they  were  baptized  on  that  day,  was  it  too 
great  an  undertaking  for  the  twelve  apostles,  and  seventy  dis- 
ciples to  have  performed  it,  seeing  each  administrator  would 
onlv  have  thirty-seven  persons  to  baptize  ?  But  you  object, 
"  The  seventy  disciples  were  not  authorized  to  administer 
ordinances."  Who  gave  you  that  information,  sir  ?  You  know 
they  were  sent  to  preach,  Luke  x.  1. ;  yea,  and  that  they  wrought 
miracles  in  attestation  of  their  mission,  which  no  modern 
preacher  can  do  ;  and  surely  it  must  be  presumption  to  affirm 
the}'  had  no  authority  to  do  what  men  in  the  present  day  may, 
who  have  not  been  sent  to  preach  immediately  by  Christ.  Neither 
is  there  the  least  colour  of  truth  in  the  assertion.  It  is  positively 
said  that  "  Jesus  himself  baptized  not,  but  his  disciples,"  John 
iv.  2.  Phillip,  who  was  not  an  apostle,  did  baptize  the  Samaritans, 
Acts  viii.  12.  Equally  destitute  of  plausibility  is  the  objection, 
il  that  convenient  places  could  not  be  found  for  to  baptize  such 


211 

numbers,  and  that  they  could  have  had  no  change  of  raiment."" 
It  is  well  known  that  places  were  erected  in  every  direction 
among  the  Jews  for  bathing,  which  they  were  obliged  constantly 
to  perform  to  purify  from  ceremonial  uncleanness,  and  in  which 
chiefly  their  religion  lay  ;  and  beside  the  private  baths,  there  was 
the  brazen  sea  in  the  outward  court  of  the  temple,  which  was 
supplied  with  water,  as  the  Jews  say,  from  the  fountain  of  Etom ; 
likewise  the  pool  of  Bethesda,  into  which  persons  went  down 
at  certain  times  for  healing,  John  v.  2. ;  and  also  the  pool  of 
Siloam,  John  ix.  7*  All  such  objections  would  be  unworthy  of 
notice,  were  it  not  that  men  are  easily  persuaded  to  believe  that 
to  be  right,  which  they  wish  to  be  so ;  and  a  man  must  be  indeed 
much  pressed  for  want  of  argument,  who  in  support  of  a  theory 
advances  nothing  but  conjecture,  yea,  and  such  as  is  most 
ridiculous,  and  had  been  refuted  over  and  over  again. 

This  writer  suggests,  that  it  is  probable  Paul  was  baptized  in 
the  house  where  he  was.  His  reasons  are,  "  there  being  no 
hint  of  his  going  out  to  any  water,  weak  as  he  was  with  long 
fasting,  and  agitation  of  mmd.**  But,  surely,  there  is  no  hin^ 
given,  that  he  was  baptized  in  the  house  ;  and  even  if  there  had 
been,  it  would  not  prove  there  was  no  cistern  or  place  to  bathe 
in  there.  Beside,  there  is  a  hint,  and  that  a  strong  one  too,  that 
he  was  not  sprinkled;  for  it  is  said,  Acts  ix.  18.  that  he  "  arose 
and  was  baptized  :"  but  zvhy  rise  up,  if  only  to  be  sprinkled  ? 
Surely,  if  what  was  urged  about  his  being  weak  with  fasting  was 
true,  and  on  that  account  he  ought  not  to  be  immersed,  why  not 
sprinkle  him  m  a  sitting  posture  ?  In  a  note  on  this  text,  the 
author  declares  Paul  was  not  baptized  on  a  profession  of  faith  ? 
But  was  not  that  a  profession  of  his  faith  in  Christ,  when  he 
stiles  him  Lord,  and  asks,  u  What  wilt  thou  have  me  do  ?'  Nor 
was  there  need  of  a  profession  of  faith  being  made  to  Ananias, 
when  God  himself  had  declared  Paul  to  be  a  "  chosen  vessel.1' 
If  our  opponents  could  bring  equal  proof  in  favour  of  their 
candidates  for  baptism,  it  would  be  well  for  them  :  but,  after 
all,  there  is  nothing  in  the  text  that  warrants  such  an  assertion  ; 
the  mere  silence  of  the  passage  does  not. 

A  thunderer  against  the  Baptists  is  now  advanced,  Acts  x.47. 
"  Can  any  man  forbid  water,  that  these  should  not  be  baptized  V* 
The  comment  of  our  author  is,  "  Can  any  forbid  water  to  be 
brought  or  provided  to  baptize  these  r"  Why  add  to  the  text  ? 
There  is  not  a  word  about  being  u  brought"  or  "  provided." 
What  a  nice  place  would  this  be  for  our  Pcedobaptist  brethren, 
if  such  words  could  but  be  found  in  the  text !  Query,  Could 
they  not  find  some  old  manuscript  copy  of  the  Testament  that 
has  them  in  ?  or  could  they  not  by  some  means  get  them  in  un- 
observed I  But  where  is  the  great  d  ifficulty  of  denying  the  uv ;  of 


212 

a  bath,  as  well  as  of  a  bowl  of  water  ?  Indeed,  to  forbid  as  much 
water  as  would  sprinkle  a  person's  face  would  be  nonsense  ;  for 
none  would  pretend  to  forbid  it,  nor  would  the  apostle  ask  such 
a  trifling  question ;  but  the  question  is  of  more  importance  when 
it  stands  thus  :  "  Who  shall  forbid  the  use  of  his  bath,  cistern, 
or  fountain,  seeing  this  case  is  so  singular?"  The  question,  after 
all,  does  not  relate  to  the  water,  but  to  baptism  ;  for  the  Jews 
had  an  idea  that  the  Gentiles  were  not  to  be  admitted  to  the 
same  privileges  with  believing  Jews,  and  Peter  himself  had  that 
sentiment,  until  Lis  vision  on  the  house  top  ;  nor  was  he  fully 
confirmed  in  th»  contrary  opinion  until  he  saw  the  Holy  Spirit 
fall  on  Cornelius,  as  on  the  apostles  themselves  ;  and  then,  the 
question  was  addressed  to  the  believing  Jews  that  accompanied 
him,  which  Will  stand  thus  :  u  You  see,  my  brethren,  that  the 
Holy  Ghost  has  fallen  on  these  gentiles,  as  it  did  on  us  at  Pente- 
cost ;  can  any  man  of  you,  therefore,  retain  your  old  prejudices 
against  the  gentiles,  and  forbid  them  to  be  baptized,  as  you  have 
heretofore  done  ?" 

From  the  baptism  of  the  jailor,  (Acts  xvi.  33.)  he  has  drawn 
the  conclusion,  it  could  not  have  been  by  immersion,  and  that 
for  these  reasons  which  he  assigns  :  "  1.  It  was  done  in  the 
night,  and  in  the  prison  where  there  was  no  river  nor  pool. 
2.  That  the  jailor  with  his  whole  family,  and  his  prisoners, 
whom  he  was  charged  to  keep  at  his  peril,  could  not  grope  away 
through  the  dark  to  a  river  or  pool,  and  that  through  a  city  just 
waked  up  with  a  great  earthquake,  and  the  streets  it  is  probable 
filled  with  frighted  citizens."  It  is  not  true,  that  they  were 
baptized  in  the  prison ;  for  the  text  positively  says,  "  he  brought 
them  into  his  house,"  verse  34.  which  he  could  not  have  done, 
if  they  had  not  been  out  of  it ;  and  we  have  better  reason  to 
conclude  they  went  out  for  this  very  purpose,  than  he  has  to 
suppose  the  contrary.  But  what  other  reason  could  they  have 
for  going  out  of  the  house  ?  That  there  was  a  river  running  har4 
by  the  city,  (if  not  through  it,  which  was  the  case  with  almost 
all  eastern  cities)  is  evident  from  verse  13,  where  Paul  baptized 
Lydia  ;  and  how  can  this  gentleman  say,  it  was  not  very  near 
to  the  prison  itself?  Surely  it  would  not  be  thought  strange  to 
baptize  at  night,  nor  had  the  jailor  need  of  taking  all  his 
prisoners  with  him ;  for  it  is  not  to  be  supposed,  that  he  had  not 
persons  under  him  as  assistants,  and  with  whom  he  could  leave 
the  prisoners  in  charge  during  his  absence  ;  yea,  it  is  rather  a 
certainty,  than  a  probability,  that  such  was  the  case  ;  for  it  is 
highly  improbable  that  a  man  having  such  a  charge  should  be  by 
himself.  There  was  also  a  great  difference  between  Paul  leaving 
the  prison  while  he  could  administer  baptism,  and  leaving  it 
altogether,,  and  that  by  r.n^alth ;  which  might  have  given  an 


213 

appearance  of  guilt,  and  justified  the  magistracy  in  his  confine 
meiit.  Indeed,  his  voluntary  return  to  his  prison  after  he  was 
out  of  it,  and  had  power  to  escape,  justified  the  confidence 
placed  in  him  by  the  jailor.  It  does  not  appear  that  the  earth- 
quake extended  to  the  city,  as  the  author  affirms  ;  nor  is  there 
any  foundation  for  such  a  sentiment  in  the  text,  but  the  contrary ; 
and  that  this  earthquake  only  affected  the  prison  is  certain, 
1.  Because  there  is  no  mention  made  of  the  citizens  being 
affrighted,  or  awakened  ;  and,  2.  Because,  in  verse  26,  all  that 
is  said  of  it  is,  that  "  the  foundations  of  the  prison  were  shaken" 
- — not  a  word  of  the  city.  Whence,  then,  all  this  high  colouring? 
Is  it  justified  by  the  text  ?  If  not,  where  was  the  difficulty  of 
repairing  to  the  water  ?  But  he  says  that  u  it  is  never  intimated 
that  they  went  from  the  place  where  they  happened  to  be,  to  any 
river  or  stream,  that  they  might  be  baptized  in,  or  at  it."  Surely 
the  author  is  not  very  nice  in  his  examination  of  scripture,  or 
he  would  have  seen  JMatth.  iii.  5,  6.  "  Then  zuent  out  to  htm 
Jerusalem,  and  all  Judea,  and  all  the  region  round  about  Jordan, 
and  were  baptized  of  him  in  Jordan,  confessing  their  sins ;  and 
in  verse  13,  "  Then  cometh  Jesus  from  Gallilee  to  Jordan  unto 
John,  to  be  baptized  of  kim.n 

His  remarks  on  Rom.  vi.  4.  "  We  are  buried  with  Christ  in 
baptism,"  have  been  amply  noticed  already  ;  and,  were  it  neces- 
sary, many  examples  of  Posdobaptist  writers  of  the  first  respec- 
tability might  be  brought  to  shew  that  they  thought  differently 
„  on  this  text  from  the  author;  pi  the  sermon,  and  believed  the 
allusion  to  be  to  the  mode  of  baptism, 

I  pass  to  his  fourth  and  last  question,  "  whether  dipping- 
answers  to,  and  represents  the  thing  signified  in  baptism  better 
than  sprinkling."  Well,  sir,  let  us  hear :  "  Christ  washes  us 
from  our  sins  in  his  own  blood."  Are  you  in  earnest  ?  Does 
sprinkling  represent  this  better  than  dipping?  I  have  indeed 
read  that  they  washed  their  robes  and  made  them  white  u  rn" 
mark  that,  "  hi*  the  blood  of  the  Lamb  ;  but  never  have  I  read 
that  they  sprinkled  their  robes  white  in  his  blood  ;  and  never 
I  heard  before,  that  a  thing  can  be  washed  better  by  sprink- 
ling, than  by  dipping,  nor  do  I  think  the  gentleman  believes  so. 
I  have  often  noticed  in  this  book,  that  christian  baptism  is  never 
used  in  the  Newr  Testament  as  a  figure  of  the  atonement,  but  of 
regeneration  only ;  therefore  the  passage  is  entirely  inapplicable. 
But  to  shew  how  ridiculous  the  words  u  sprinkle,  pour,  wash," 
(as  used  by  Foedobaptists)  Would  appear  wK  n  I  to  certain 

i  of  scripture,  and  which,  when  immersion  is  used,  are  fre  : 
I  here 
v  .. 


214 

Pbedobaptism  examined.     See  Bryant's  abridgment  of  Booth, 

37. 
'*  While  our  brethren  maintain  that  the  term  baptism,  when 

ing  to  the  institution  so  called,  means  any  thing  short  of 

ersion,  it  behoves  them  to  inform  us,  which  of  our  English 
words  is  competent  to  express  its  adequate  idea.  I  have  ob- 
served, indeed,  that  they  seldom  fix  upon  any  particular  term 
and  abide  by  it,  as  answering  to  the  word  baptism  ;  but  rather 
choose  to  use  washing,  pouring,  or  sprinkling,  just  as  their 
cause  requires.  Now,  as  these  three  expressions,  in  their 
native  signification,  denote  three  different  actions,  it  looks  as  if 
they  \.  rful  of  being  embarrassed,  were  they  to  select  one 

of  them,  and  uniformly  employ  it  in  preference  to  the  other  two. 
As  they  do  not  pretend  our  divine  Lawgiver  meant,  that  v. 
ing,  pouring  and  sprinkling,  should  all  be  performed  on  the 
same  person,  to  constitute  baptism  j  so,  while  they  believe  that 
any  action  short  of"  immersion  is  warranted  by  his  command, 
they  ought  as  fair  disputants,  to  tell  us  what  that  action  is,  and 
by  what  name  we  should  call  it.  At  present,  however,  we  can 
only  ask,  is  it  washing  ?  If  so,  we  may  consider  that  word  as  a 
proper  translation  of  it,  and  a  complete  substitute  for  it,  wherever 
the  ordinance  before  us  is  mentioned  by  the  sacred  writers.  Let 
us  make  the  experiment  on  a  few  passages.  We  will  take,  for 
instance,  the  words  of  Ananias  to  Saul,  Acts  xxii.  16.  which 
must  be  read  thus  :  "  Arise  and  be  -washed,  and  wash  away  thy 
sins."  And  those  of  Paul,  Rom.  vi.  3.  and  Gal.  iii.  27.  "  Know 
ye  not,  that  as  many  of  us  as  were  washed  into  Christ,  have  put 
on  Christ."  Is  it  pouring  ?  Then  we  must  read,  Mark  i.  9.  and 
Acts  ii.  38.  41.  thus  :  u  Jesus  came  from  Nazareth  of  Galilee., 
and  was  poured  of  John  in  (m,  into)  Jordan.  Repent  and  be 
one  of  you,  Then  they  that  gladly  received  his 
word  were  poured^  Is  it  sprinkling  ?  Then  we  must  ; 
John  iii..  23.  Rom  vi.  4.  Col.  ii.  12.  thus  :  "  John  also  was 
sprinkling  in  Enon,  near  to  Salim,  because  there  was  7nucli 
r,  and  they  came  and  were  sprinkled — Therefore,  wTe 
are  buried  with  him  by  sprinkling  into  death — Buried  with  him 
by  sprinkling." 

These  few  examples  may  suffice  to  shew  what  an  aukward 

appearance  the  noble  sense,  and  masculine  diction  of  inspiration 

wear,  when  expressed  according  to  this  hypothesis.    Whereas, 

if  instead  of  washing,  pouring,  or  sprinkling,  vou  employ  the 

version,    the   preceding  passages  will   make  a  very 

figure,  and  r.  ad  thus  :   Arise  and  be  immersed,  and 

i   away  thy  sins.     Know   ye   not,  t  nany  as   were 

.   i  into  Jesus  Christ,  were  immersed into  his  cleath  ?    As 


215 

many  of  us  as  have  been  immersed  into  Christ,  have  put  on 
Christ.     Jesus  came  from  Nazareth  of  Gallilee,  and  was  im- 
mersed of  John  in  (or  into)  Jordan.     Repent  and  be  immersed 
every  one  of  you.     Then  they  that  gladly  received  the  word 
were  immersed.     John  was  immersing  in  Enon,  near  to  Salim, 
because  there  was  much  water  there  :  and  they  came  and 
immersed.     Therefore  we  are  buried  with  him  by  imiriei 
into  death — buried  with  him  by  immersion.     I  think  thes 
answer  the  gentleman's  question  effectually,  whet 
or  immersion  best  agrees  with  what;  is  said  of  baptism  in  the 
New  Testament. 

On  the  mode  of  baptizing,  I  shall  close  my  remarks  by  saying, 
First,  That  immersion  is  agreeable  to  all  the  allusions  te- 
as found  in  the  New  Testament,  which  sprinkling  cannot  suit- 
ably represent.     Is  the  new  birth  called  the  xvceshvng  of  re 
ration  ?  Then  sprinkling  cannot  represent  it ;  for  the  new  birth 
extends  to  ail  the  faculties  of  the  mind,  but  sprinkling  is  a  pai 
wetting  :  whereas,  immersion  represents  the  renovation  o 
whole  man.     Are  the  sufferings  of  Christ  called  a  baptism  t 
Then  they  cannot  be  set  forth  by  sprinkling,  because  it  would 
convey  a  diminutive  idea  of  his  sufferings  ;  but  immersion  is 
expressive.     Is  baptism  called  a  burial  ?  Then  sprinkling  can 
by  no  means  be  baptism  ;  for  the  candidate  is  not  buried  be- 
sprinkling.   Is  the  miraculous  descent  of  the  Holy  Ghost  called 
a  baptism?  Then  sprinkling  cannot  be  a  representation  of  it ; 
for  the  house  was  filled  where  they  were  with  spiritual  influence, 
and  they  covered  in  it.     Were  the  children  of  L.  tized 

unto  Moses  in  the  sea,  and  in  the  cloud  ?  Then  sprinkling 
cannot  set  it  forth ;  for  they  are  net  u  in'"'  sprinkling,  but  it 
is  "  on"  them  :  nor  will  it  set  forth  the  sea  through  which  they 
passed,  and  the  cloud  that  covered  them  ;  for  sprinkling  is  at 
best  but  a  few  drops  of  water ;  neither  does  the  sprinkled  person 
go  to  the  bottom  of  the  bowl,  as  Israel  did  to  the  bottom  of  the 
sea  :  but,  in  immersion,  the  partv  is  completely  covered  oi 
sight,  as  Israel  were  in  the  sea.  Was  Noah,  in  the  ark,  a  type 
of  baptism  ?  Then  sprinkling  cannot  set  it  forth  ;  for  as  he  was 
encompassed  with  the  waters  above,  and  t  rone 

will  pretend  to  say  sprinkling  will  overwhelm  or  encompass  the 
person.     But  to  all  these  things  immersion  \  -s. 

Secondly,  Nor  will  sprinkling  agree  with  the  places  of  bap- 
tism ;  for,  did  they  go  into  rivers  ?  Fhen,  if  sprinkling  had  bj  t  n 
baptism,  their  conduct  was  preposterous  ;  it  could  have  been 
done  at  home  as  well.  Did  they  go  down  into,  and  come  up 
out  cfthe  water  ?  Then  why  is  this,  if  they  were  sprinkled  oi 
Did  they  assign  as  a  reason  for  going  to  Enon,  "  that  there  was 


216 

much  water  there  ?**  Why  should  they  give  this  as  a  reason,  if 
sprinkling  were  baptism  ?  it  does  not  require  much  water  to 
sprinkle  with  ? 

Thirdly,  Washing,  when  called  baptism,  in  everyplace  where 
it  occurs,  is  not  such  a  washing  as  Poedobaptists  use  in  sprink- 
ling ;  but  such  an  one  as  implies  a  dipping,  or  covering :  and 
when  the  man  is  said  to  be  washed,  or  baptized,  it  always  agrees 
in  the  place  with  immersion  ;  and  when  part  of  the  man  is  only 
baptized,  it  is  always  so  expressed,  as  the  "  baptizing  of  his 
hands."  Nor  is  pouring  ever  called  a  baptism,  but  in  the  baptism 
of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  this  was  such  a  pouring  as  well  agreed 
with  immersion ;  for  it  was  a  pouring  that  overwhelmed  the 
apostles. 

Fourthly,  That  the  word  baptizo  signifies  to  immerse,  to  dip, 
or  plunge,  is  evident,  1.  Because  the  Greek  church,  who  are 
best  acquainted  with  their  own  language,  do  not  sprinkle,  but 
in  every  instance  immerse  unto  this  day.  2.  Because,  in  all  the 
Greek  lexicons  of  note,  the  word  is  said  in  its  primary  sense  to 
signify  to  dip,  to  immerse;  and  when  they  translate  it  to  wash, 
it  is  only  as  a  consequence  of  dipping,  as  a  thing  must  needs  be 
washed  that  has  been  under  the  water.  Scapula,  Stephens  and 
Schrevelius ;  Leigh,  in  his  Critica  Sacra,  Budseus,  Constantine, 
and  many  others  might  be  enumerated,  3.  Because  the  most 
learned  Poedobaptists  themselves,  do  admit  this  is  the  meaning 
of  the  word,  and  that  baptism  was  so  administered  :  but  plead 
in  the  behalf  of  sprinkling,  not  a  divine  warrant,  but  coldness 
of  climate,  and  that  the  water  itself  has  no  virtue  in  it,  or  the 
like.  Among  the  names  who  admit  this  are,  Baxter,  Pool's 
Continuators,  Dr.  Doddridge,  Saurin,  Whitby,  Calvin  ;  and 
men  of  the  same  sentiments,  and  first  respectability,  may  be 
referred  to  without  number,  who  have  conceded  the  same 
point. 

Fifthly,  Sprinkling  has  not  prevailed  more  than  about  three 
hundred  years '-'?,  and  the  testimony  of  Poedobaptists  who  have 
written  ecclesiastical  history,  give  it  in  favour  of  immersion. 
The  learned  Dr.  John  Lawrence  Mosheim  was  a  Lutheran,  and 
practised  the  baptizing  of  infants  ;  yet,  in  his  church  history, 
proves  indisputably  that  in  the  three  first  centuries,  baptism  was 
administered  to  such  only  as  professed  faith  in  Christ,  and  that 
it  was  universally  done  by  immersion.  See  page  126  of  the 
first  volume  of  the  Philadelphia  edition,  where  he  says,  "  The 
sacrament  of  baptism,  was  administered  in  this  century,  [that  is, 

*  See  Robinson's  History,  which  says,  that  Dr.  Lightfoot  caused  immer- 
sion to  be  laid  aside  by  the  assembly  of  divines,  which  was  decided  only  bv  a 
majority  of  one,  there  being-  twenty-five  for,  and  twenty-four  against  its  disuse. 


217 

the  first]  without  the  public  assemblies,  in  places  appointed  and 
prepared  for  that  purpose,  and  was  performed  by  immersion  of 
the  whole  body  in  water  ;"  and  that  it  was  u  customary  that 
the  converts  should  be  baptized  and  received  into  the  church  by 
those  under  whose  ministry  they  had  embraced  the  christian 
doctrine"  Also,  in  the  second  century,  page  206,  "  The  persons 
that  were  to  be  baptized,  after  they  had  repeated  the  creed,  and 
confessed  and  renounced  their  sins,  and  particularly  the  devil,  in 
his  pomps  and  allurements,  were  immersed  under  water."  In 
the  third  century,  he  says,  p.  283,  "  Baptism  was  administered 
to  such  as,  after  a  long  course  of  trial  and  preparation,  offered 
themselves  as  candidates  for  the  profession  of  Christianity." 

In  the  pamphlet  we  have  noticed,  the  author  tries  to  lead  his 
readers  astray  by  quotations  from  the  fathers,  wherein  he  asserts, 
that  as  early  as  forty  years  after  the  apostles,  the  baptizing  of 
infants  is  spoken  of  in  their  writings.  The  persons  he  refers  us 
to  in  proof  of  it  are,  Justin  Martyr,  Irenaeus,  Tertullian,  Origen 
and  Cyprian.  All  that  he  has  said  here  has  been  literally  copied 
from  a  sermon  of  Mr.  Bostwick,  of  New- York,  yet  no  credit 
has  been  given  to  him  for  it :  but  it  is  disingenuous  to  the  last 
degree  in  him  to  renew  this  argument,  when  he  well  knows  that 
the  late  Dr.  Gill  proved  Mr.  Bostwick's  assertions  erroneous  ; 
and,  as  that  gentleman  never  did  reply  to  the  Doctor,  his  silence 
is  conclusive  evidence  of  his  defeat.  Nor  does  our  author  give  a 
true  account  of  the  time  in  which  thev  lived  ;  for  according  to 
him,  Justin  Martyr  wrote  about  forty  years  after  the  apostles  : 
but  the  fact  is,  that  he  lived  about  one  hundred  and  fifty  years 
after  Christ.  Irenaeus,  instead  of  living  in  the  apostolic  age,  as 
he  says,  actually  flourished  about  one  hundred  and  eighty  years 
after  Christ.  Nor  did  Tertullian,  as  he  affirms,  live  within  one 
hundred  and  ninety  years  of  the  apostles  ;  for  he  did  not  join 
the  church  at  Carthage,  until  the  close  of  the  second  century, 
nor  flourish  until  the  beginning  of  the  third.  Cyprian  lived 
about  the  middle  of  the  third  century  ;  but  this  author  says  it 
was  about  one  hundred  years  after  the  apostles.  Nov/,  what 
dependance  is  to  be  placed  in  men's  assertions,  when  they  can, 
to  serve  their  purpose,  so  egregiouslv  falsify  history  ? 

This  author's  pretended  quotation  from  Justin  Martyr  is, 
that  "  some  aged  christians  were  made  disciples  in,  or  from 
their  infancy ;"  and,  though  he  allows  that  infant  baptism  is 
not  mentioned,  yet  he  savs,  u  if  they  were  made  disciples  in 
infancy,  they  were  doubtless  the  subjects  of  baptism."  The 
quotation  is  not  correct ;  for  the  word  "  disciple"  is  net  in  the 
passage  ;  all  that  he  says  is,  that  they  were  "  instructed"  from 
their  childhood  :    The  original  quotation  is,  "  Several  persons 


213  ! 

among  us,  men  and  women  of  sixty  and  seventy  years  of 
who  from  their  childhood  were  instructed  in  Christ,  remain 
incorrupt."  These  persons  were  instructed,  not  baptized,  nor 
made  disciples.  How  absurd,  therefore,  the  conclusion,  that 
they  were  baptized  in  their  infancy,  when  no  such  thing  is  said! 
]Nor  is  the  Greek  word,  which  he  renders  "  infancy""  in  his 
quotation,  properly  translated  ;  for  it  ought  to  be  rendered 
"  children  ;"  and  surely,  it  will  not  be  thought  strange  that  such 
should  be  instructed  ;  for  Timothy  knew  the  scriptures  from  a 
"child"  Besides,  "  instructing"  supposes  they  were  not  infant;;  ; 
and  therefore,  if  they  had  been  "  diseiplcd"  as  he  affirms,  yet 
it  was  done  at  a  time  when  they  could,  and  actually  did,  receive 
"  instruction" 

Our  author  says,  u  Irenaeus  mentions  the  baptism  of  infants," 
This  assertion  of  his  is  altogether  false  :  The  words  are,  "  He 
(that  is,  Christ)  came  to  save  all ;  all  I  say,  who  by  him  are  born 
again  to  God,  infants  and  little  ones,  and  children,  and  young 
men,  and  old  men."  He  will  have  it,  that  by  u  regeneration"  is 
meant  "  baptism :"  but  this  gross  error  of  calling  regeneration 
baptism,  had  not  at  that  time  got  into  use,  and  was  reserved  to 
darker  ages  ;  nor  is  it  in  his  power  to  shew  an  instance  in  any 
of  the  writings  of  Irenaeus  of  its  being  so  used,  to  justify  this 
interpretation.  This  would  make  him  say,  that  Christ  came  to 
save  all  baptized  person  lie  never  would  have  said  :  but 

it  was  true  in  the  sense  he  used  it,  that  Christ  came  to  save  alJ 
that  were  U  born  again  of  God  ;"  for  no  doubt  infants  dying  in 
infancy,  are  regenerated  and  taken  to  glory:  but  not  all  infants  ; 
for  some  grow  up  in  sin  and  live  in  it  all  their  days. 

He  next  introduces  Tertullian,  who,  he  says,  "  speal 
baptizing  of  infants  as  a  practice  of  the  church,"  and  he  calls 
him  singular  and  whimsical.     Tertullian  does  not  say  it  was  a 
practice  of  the  church  ;  hut  he  opposes  it  as  an  innovation,  and 
declares  it  to  be  wrong,  advising  that  such  should  grow  up  first 

be  instructed  before  they  were  baptized  :     His  words 
*'  Let  them  come,  while  they  are  growing  up,  let  them  come  and 
learn,  and  let  the  i  •  when  the}'  come,  and  w 

understand  Christianity,  let  them  profess  themselves  cl 
."     1  now  ask,  is  it  not  too  barefaced  for  a  man  to  assert, 
r,  that  he  spoke  of  infant  baptism  as  a  practice 
of  the  church  ?    We,  indeed,  have  not  denied  that  at  this  time 

jade  to  introduce  infant  baptism,  I 
the  notion  that  it  was  .  ''.on  :  but  other  errors  wen 

introduce  tys  j  whose  words 

Lw  It  is  well  known,  iety  of  supe rst 

bus  and  foolish  rites  were  I  I  into  the  church."     Must  it 


219 

[dent  to  an  unprejudiced  mind,  that  this  is  an  evidence 
against  infant  baptism,  rather  than  a  deft  nee  of  it?   But  why  call 

Tertullian  whimsical  r    Or,  if  he  were  so,  why  quote  him  as  aft 
authority?  The  whole  mysterj  lies  in  this,  that  b  d  the 

baptizing  of  infants  ;  and  the  test  of  firmness  and  with 

our  author  must,  no  doubt,  be  zeal  tor  infant  baptism. 

Origen  is  next  mentioned,  thus  :   wC  He  was  one  of  the  most 

led  and  knowing  men  of  the  age,  and  declares,  that  infants 

are,  by  the  usage  of  the  church,  baptized.    And  that  an  order  for 

the  baptizing  of  infants  had  bee-  delivered  to  the  church,  from 

postles,  who  knew  that  the  pollution  of  sin  is  in  all."     The 

lerwill  observe,  that  Origen  wrote  m  Greek,  and  many  of 

his  own  writings  are  still  in  being  ;  but  this  quotation  concerning 

t  baptism,  is  not  found  in  any  of  them.     But  if  it  is  asked, 

whence  was  it  derived  ?  The  answer  is,  that  our  opponents  have 

i  it  from  lations,  which  are 

not  to  be  trusted.     These  were  made  by  men  that  lived  at  the 

end  of  the  fourth  century,  when  the  churches  w  eve  ovc  mm 

error.     But  had  it  been  in  reality  proved  (which  it  cannot: 

be)  that  Origen  had  so  written  ;  yet  his  assertions  deserve  but 

lit,  as  he  was  one  of  the  most  erroneous  and  w 

5  us  persons  of  hi  gh  f  universal  salvation  ; 

and  that  our  author  has  given  him  a  character  he  by  no  re, 

deserves,  and  to  shew  how  little  reliance  is  to  be  placed  on 

join  a  quotation  from  a  Poedobaptist  (Bishop 
Taylor)  concerning  him :  His  remarks  are,  "  A  tradition  ape  sto- 
lical,  if  it  be  net  consigned  with  a  fuller  testimony  than  that  of 
one  person  (Origen)  whom  all  ages  ha\  '  of  mam j 

errors,  will  obtain  so  little  reputation  among  those,  whole 

others  have  upon  greater  authority  pn 
from  the  apostles  and  yet  falsely,  that  it  will  be  a  great  argument 
that  he  is  creduloi  detenu  h 

k  approbation  in  a  matter  of  so  great  cor,  . 
reader  will  see  by  this  quotation  from  so  eminent  a  person  as 
Bishop  Taylor,  that  our  author's  recommendation  ol  char; 
is  not  to  be  trusted  ;  and  this  will  learn  the  reader  to  be  can 
how  he  takes  on  trust  what  this  v  erts. 

Cyprian  (says  our  author)  gives  as  full  a  testimony  as  po:> 
to  the  practice  of  infant  baptism   at  the  time  lie  lived*      At  a. 
council  of  sixtv-six  ministers,  held  about  one  hundred  and 
years  after  the  apostles,  (th  re  is  false,  i\)\'  it  ■ 

middle  of  the  third  centur  ler  it 

not  be  pro;  v  r  I 

:  it  ted  that  i  i 


220 

introduced  in  the  beginning  of  the  third  century.  Of  what  tree 
can  it  be  to  tell  us  of  Cyprian,  who  lived  after  that  period,  or  of 
the  council  of  Carthage  which  debated  the  question  referred  to, 
when  we  have  not  disputed  it  prevailed  then  ?  Take  out  the  false 
date  our  author  has  given  it,  and  then  the  poison  is  extracted  ; 
for  instead  of  this  being  done  in  the  second  century,  it  will  be 
found  to  be  in  the  middle  of  the  third.  But  the  name  of  the 
council  in  which  this  was  debated  is  kept  back,  as  well  as  the 
arguments  used  in  support,  as  likewise  other  ridiculous  questions 
debated.  Why  not  tell  these  things  ?  Was  the  gentleman 
ashamed  of  the  transaction  ?  Well  he  may  be.  But  that  the 
reader  may  see  the  extreme  ignorance  and  superstition  of  these 
"  ministers"  as  he  calls  them,  I  will  give  a  little  account  of  this 
business. 

A  Bishop  named  Fidus  wrote  to  Cyprian  at  Carthage,  to 
know  whether  children  might  be  baptized  before  they  wer£ 
eight  days  old,  (it  seems  his  Bible  could  not  determine  this 
question,  nor  yet  Cyprian)  ;  a  council  was  called,  and  its  deci- 
sion was  this  :  "  That  God  denies  grace  to  none  ;  that  God 
would  be  a  respecter  of  persons  if  he  were  to  deny  to  infants 
what  he  grants  to  adults  ;"  and  then  to  justify  this  decision, 
they  advance  the  following  reasoning :  "  Did  not  the  prophet 
Elijah  lie  upon  a  child  and  put  his  mouth  upon  his  mouth,  and 
his  eyes  upon  his  eyes,  and  his  hands  upon  his  hands  I  Now, 
the  spiritual  sense  of  all  this  is,  that  infants  are  equal  to  men ; 
but  if  you  refuse  to  baptize  them,  you  destroy  the  equalit)vand 
are  partial."  Here,  reader,  is  conclusive  reasoning  for  vou! 
Here  is  the  mighty  decision  of  the  council  of  Carthage!  How 
profound  the  reasoning!  Elijah  lay  upon  a  child,  therefore 
infants  are  to  be  baptized  !  Infants  are  equal  to-  men,  therefore 
are  to  be  baptized  !  God  is  no  respecter  of  persons,  therefore 
infants  are  to  be  baptized  !  Wonderful  council  of  Carthage  ! 
Sixty-six  Solomons  indeed  they  were ;  and  no  doubt  our  author, 
had  he  then  lived,  would  have  vied  with  any  of  them  !  But  one 
thing  is  singular  :  they  do  not  pretend  to  any  apostolic  tradition. 
do  not  quote  the  practice  of  the  church — bring  forward  no 
command  of  Christ — no  example  from  the  New  Testament ; 
as  for  them,  they  at  that  time  never  thought  of  arguing  from 
Abraham's  covenant,  and  were  it  seems  ignorant  of  infant 
church  membership,  and  destitute  of  arguments  which  modern 
Poedobaptists  so  amply  supply  in  the  present  day. 

But  I  have  not  done  with  this  council  yet ;  for  it  seems  the 
pious  Fidus  above  mentioned,  had  his  conscience  troubled  about 
a  matter  equally  as  weighty  as  the  baptizing  of  a  child  at  eight 
tiays  old,  nor  could  he  rest  until  the  council  decided  on  it ;  and 


221 

now,  reader,  if  you  promise  me  not  to  laugh  immoderately,  I 
will  tell  you  what  it  is.  Poor  dear  man,  he  was  very  delicate,  and 
had  no  small  fear  of  ceremonial  defilement  (as  a  person  of  his 
holiness  must  needs  be)  ;  now  as  it  was  the  practice  to  kiss  the 
babe,  poor  Fidus  thought  this  was  an  unclean  piece  of  business  to 
kiss  the  child  so  soon  after  it  was  born  ;  and,  fearing  the  wrath 
of  heaven  if  he  did  not  do  it,  his  holy  soul  could  not  rest  until 
the  council  had  settled  the  matter.  This  council  that  decided 
so  wonderfully  on  infant  baptism,  very  gravely  debated  the 
point,  and  after  many  a  display  of  genius,  decided  thus  :  "  You 
are  mistaken,  Fidus,  children  in  this  case  are  not  unclean,  for 
the  apostle  saith,  '  to  the  pure  all  things  are  pure.'  No  man 
ought  to  be  shocked  at  kissing  what  God  condescends  to  create. 
Circumcision  was  a  carnal  rite,  this  is  spiritual  circumcision, 
and  Peter  saith  we  ought  not  to  call  any  man  common  or 
unclean."  These  famous  bishops  were  as  tenacious  of  the 
ordinance  of  baby  kissing,  as  of  baby  baptizing.  It  is  indeed 
singular,  that  while  these  gentlemen  refer  to  Cyprian  and  others 
as  authorities"  for  the  subjects  of  baptism,  they  wholly  reject 
the  mode ;  for  it  is  well  known  that  they  practised  immersion 
only. 

One  remark  more  will  close  these  strictures ;  and  that  is  on 
what  the  author  says  in  page  51,  "  that  we  have  the  testimony 
of  Doctor  Wall  to  this  effect :  '  For  the  first  four  hundred  years, 
there  appears  only  one  man  (Xertullian),  that  advised  the  delay 
of  infant  baptism  in  some  cases,  and  one  Gregory  that  did 
perhaps  practise  such  delay  in  the  case  of  his  children  ;  but  no 
society  so  thinking,  or  so  practising,  nor  any  one  man  saying  that 
it  was  not  lawful  to  baptize  infants.  In  the  next  seven  hundred 
years,  there  is  not  so  much  as  one  man  to  be  found  that  either 
speaks  for,  or  practised  such  delay."  Had  all  this  been  true, 
what  would  it  prove,  more  than  that  the  long  reign  of  the 
superstitions  of  popery  is  a  justification  of  those  superstitions  ; 
such  reasonings  will  justify  most  of  the  errors  of  the  church  of 
Rome.  But  it  is  not  true  ;  for  Doctor  Wall  has  allowed  that 
Tertullian  did  oppose  it,  on  its  first  introduction  in  the  begin- 
ning of  the  third  century  ;  and  the  same  man  produces  a  deci- 
sion of  the  council  of  Carthage,  one  hundred  and  eighteen  years 
after  Cyprian,  where  persons  are  anathematised  who  deny  infant 
baptism.  This  was  in  the  year  418,  and  stands  thus  :  "  Also 
it  is  our  pleasure,  that  whoever  denies  that  new  born  infants 
are  to  be  baptized,  let  him  be  anathema."  Would  that  council 
have  given  these  directions,  had  it  not  been  opposed  ?  And  the 
same  Doctor  Wall  admits,  that  Peter  Bruis,  and  Henri;,  his 
follower,  were  both  Antipoedobaptist  preachers,  and  says,  "  the\p 

Ff 


222 

were  the  first  that  ever  set  up  a  church,  or  society  of  men 
holding  that  opinion  against  infant  baptism,  and  rebaptizing 
such  as  had  been  baptized  in  infancy  ;  and  that  the  Lateral! 
council,  under  Innocent  II.  A.  D.  1139,  did  condemn  Peter 
Bruis,  and  Arnold  Brescia."  From  this  it  appears,  that  Doctor 
Wall  has  granted  all  we  want ;  namely,  that  the  Waldenscs,  of 
which  these  men  were  pastors,  held  this  very  doctrine  ;  and  it 
is  well  known  that  the  Waldenses  were  inhabitants  of  the  vallies 
of  Piedmont,  who  firmly  and  at  the  peril  of  their  lives,  main- 
tained the  truth  through  all  the  dark  ages  of  popery.  Their 
confessions  prove  thev  opposed  infant  baptism.  Extracts  from 
their  confessions  may  be  seen,  with  a  general  account  of  them, 
in  Doctor  Gill's  answer  to  a  pamphlet  printed  in  Boston  in  1 746. 

I  now  commit  this  performance  to  the  blessing  of  God,  being* 
confident  that  the  purest  motives  have  influenced  its  publication ; 
and,  whatever  be  its  fate,  the  author  rests  satisfied  that  the  cause 
is  God's,  and  will  eventually  triumph  over  all  opposition. 


THE   END. 


